Unabogie
Philosopher
Michael Brown Shooting
- Thread starter Unabogie
- Start date
- Status
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Please, it was a neighborhood store. Brown had probably been going there all his life. Maybe he had no money? At any rate the store didn't file a complaint, right?
You mean like this?
Distracted1
Philosopher
Then returned, threatening the clerk further back into the store. There is no mistaking that action, it was clearly recorded. He could have run out the door after shoving the clerk, he chose to further intimidate with threat of more severe violence. That is the way Mr. Brown was dealing with those who would thwart his will ,ten minutes before he ran into officer Wilson.
That is all the recording tells us.
I am not claiming it is relevant any further than that, however, I am unwilling to let it be characterized as something negligible ,it was not.
sadhatter
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 8,694
What if the guy didn't back down? What you saw was a successful threat, what if the guy toldhim he was calling the cops?
With the evidence available, does it seem like brown is the type of person who had a problem using violence to get what he wants?
Distracted1
Philosopher
Others here will argue that it was only a few cigars, hardly grand larceny. If you turn that point around, however, it inspires the question; If Mr. Brown chose to use that level of violence to get a few cheap cigars, how violent might he become over something much, much more serious, like getting arrested and going to prison?
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,524
Maybe Brown beats him into a coma. Maybe Brown flees. I don't know and neither do you.
The "evidence available" is a single data point in a life spanning almost two decades. I'm not sure that's enough information to make an informed conclusion about what "type of person" Brown was. Maybe he was a dangerous, violent thug with a juvie record a mile long. Or maybe he was generally a well-behaved, non-violent person who was having a bad day and just snapped for some unknown reason.
All we know for sure is that he did something incredibly stupid and illegal in that store. But I don't think that's enough information on which to judge him as a person.
For anyone who disagrees: If your worst moment and most reprehensible behavior was caught on tape and broadcast to the world, would you think that to be a fair and complete representation of who you are?
Distracted1
Philosopher
I partially agree with that.
If my worst moment were broadcast to the world, I would not even feel like I am the same person I was when I did what I will feel guilt about forever.
However, ten minutes after I did it ,I was still in the same state of mind, and capable of doing it again.
Just to add clarity to another meme that seems to be accepted as fact, the store was willing to prosecute Brown for the strong-arm robbery.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Looks like the "break away" driver's side mirror on Wilson's Tahoe has been pushed forwards.
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/images/obgrabber/2014-08/2fb242935c.png
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/images/obgrabber/2014-08/2fb242935c.png
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
A meme that seems to be accepted as fact? I thought you weren't taking sides. It was Jake Kanzler the attorney for the store owner who told Fox News in St. Louis that the store did not report this, a customer did. There was a link in this thread, days ago, to the actual interview with Kanzler. He took pains to say the store did not want to be connected to this incident. Why would you think people who took that at face value are guilty of accepting a meme as fact? People have also been saying, over and over, that the market only took that action in order to avoid payback from angry blacks. Was that a meme too?
The report you linked looks like it was probably a police officer who checked the box "Willing to prosecute." Is it possible the store said one thing in public and something else to police in private? It is possible. Is it possible a police officer checked "Willing to prosecute" without checking with the store? Probably. Is it possible the box was checked AFTER Brown was already dead?
A meme that seems to be accepted as fact? I thought you weren't taking sides. It was Jake Kanzler the attorney for the store owner who told Fox News in St. Louis that the store did not report this, a customer did. There was a link in this thread, days ago, to the actual interview with Kanzler. He took pains to say the store did not want to be connected to this incident. Why would you think people who took that at face value are guilty of accepting a meme as fact? People have also been saying, over and over, that the market only took that action in order to avoid payback from angry blacks. Was that a meme too?
The report you linked looks like it was probably a police officer who checked the box "Willing to prosecute." Is it possible the store said one thing in public and something else to police in private? It is possible. Is it possible a police officer checked "Willing to prosecute" without checking with the store? Probably. Is it possible the box was checked AFTER Brown was already dead?
Why are you trying to rationalize a crime? As was stated earlier, it's disgusting.
Last edited:
Distracted1
Philosopher
A quibble, perhaps., but suggesting that the store owner may feel intimidated by members of the community is not the same as saying the store owner is afraid of retaliation byA meme that seems to be accepted as fact? I thought you weren't taking sides. It was Jake Kanzler the attorney for the store owner who told Fox News in St. Louis that the store did not report this, a customer did. There was a link in this thread, days ago, to the actual interview with Kanzler. He took pains to say the store did not want to be connected to this incident. Why would you think people who took that at face value are guilty of accepting a meme as fact? People have also been saying, over and over, that the market only took that action in order to avoid payback from angry blacks. Was that a meme too?
The report you linked looks like it was probably a police officer who checked the box "Willing to prosecute." Is it possible the store said one thing in public and something else to police in private? It is possible. Is it possible a police officer checked "Willing to prosecute" without checking with the store? Probably. Is it possible the box was checked AFTER Brown was already dead?
" angry blacks ", that is your term. Another subtle insinuation of racism, perhaps? That the members of the community who might choose to persecute the store owner are black or not is not important to me, but you seem to want it to be.
Edit. Another quibble, I guess, but does anyone other than a police officer ever check the boxes on a police report?
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
A meme that seems to be accepted as fact? I thought you weren't taking sides. It was Jake Kanzler the attorney for the store owner who told Fox News in St. Louis that the store did not report this, a customer did. There was a link in this thread, days ago, to the actual interview with Kanzler. He took pains to say the store did not want to be connected to this incident. Why would you think people who took that at face value are guilty of accepting a meme as fact? People have also been saying, over and over, that the market only took that action in order to avoid payback from angry blacks. Was that a meme too?
The report you linked looks like it was probably a police officer who checked the box "Willing to prosecute." Is it possible the store said one thing in public and something else to police in private? It is possible. Is it possible a police officer checked "Willing to prosecute" without checking with the store? Probably. Is it possible the box was checked AFTER Brown was already dead?
So now we're back to accusations of conspiracy by the police officer? Also, why is it that the version where they changed their mind was "possible" but your version where the big bad police mark it for some random reason "probable"? Once again true skepticism as Una would say it. Sorry, I'm probably being racist again.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
The question is not about whether this is a disgusting crime or not, the question is whether when the shot were fired wilson was aware of the crime, and if the shooting was justified by brown action. Everything else is irrelevant. Brown could have had been a mass murderer, it is irrelevant if wilson did not know it and fired at a surrendering man.
And least you accuse me of CT or whatever, from the statement of wilson and barring damning evidence, so far I think at the very least the initial bullet were justified.
It is jsut that the life of brown is irrelevant if wilson was not aware of it.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
We don't know that wilson is guilty. I still have a open mind on that.
plague311
Great minds think...
No, the fact that Brown stole the cigars has little to do with this at all, outside that it shows he likes to steal things. Also, he has no shame in using his size to intimidate people. The stealing of cigars doesn't justify this at all, and trust me, it's been brought up enough. The question is what happened at the vehicle, and was Brown a threat? Everything else is completely irrelevant. That being said, yes, the robbery had been called in and Wilson was aware that it took place. There are some theories that the call in was part of the reason Wilson backed up after previously starting to drive away.
I don't care what level the crime is, but what I am interested in is the state of mind that both people were in at the time. I brought this up earlier. With Brown just coming off of that altercation, and Wilson just coming from an ill person call. I don't know...
Distracted1
Philosopher
Obviously, you are correct. If the policeman saw that Mr. Brown was clearly surrendering, and continued to shoot him he committed a crime, and should be charged.
After nearly 5000 posts, that has been lost sight of sometimes. Having participated from the beginning I find myself arguing with posters based upon what earlier posters said days ago as if the argument doesn't change with the addition of a fresh voice.
The reason so many are hung up on Mr. Browns earlier actions is because it very early on was presented that he was just an average teen who fell victim to a cop with a grudge against black people. The argument has progressed to a point where that is generally ( if begrudgedly ) revised to admit that Mr. Brown may have been someone who would escalate a confrontation with a policeman to violence.
But, yes for the record, if officer Wilson shot a man who was clearly surrendering- even after having attacked him, he acted criminally.
Distracted1
Philosopher
Equally true, however, is that if he shot a man who attacked him, ran off, then started back to attack him again, he acted within the guidelines for properly responding to a threat.
First of all, I made no reference to the crime as disgusting. I addressed a poster making an obvious attempt to rationalize (which is the disgusting part) it with all sorts of speculation regarding the motivation of the store owner and not so subtle accusations of police corruption.
Here we go again with what Wilson knew or didn't know as justification for what ensued afterward. No one at any time in this Forum has stated that the store robbery was justification for the shooting death of a young man. It didn't matter at all if Wilson knew or not. In that regard it was/is non sequitur.
The only relevance of the store robbery was Brown's attitude. He used violence (I agree it was somewhat minor), but it's still an assault. What really enforces that is the intimidating move back toward the store clerk or owner. That seals the deal for me. This was a young man who used his size in an attempt to intimidate. While it does not justify what eventually happened it does illustrate how events may have unfolded that lead to his death by his own actions.
Edit: There seems to be an echo here.
Last edited:
- Status