CNN and MSNBC stirring racial unrest in Ferguson, MO.

[layoutshooter]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

You keep focusing on the looting, as if that's the most important thing here. Wow.

No, the looting is NOT the most important thing here, unless it's YOUR livelyhood.

As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. There is NO EXCUSE to loot or riot. It solves NOTHING. It makes matters WORSE.

Those are facts.

I am not focusing on ANYTHING, yet. I want to wait to see, first, if there is a real investigation, and, second, what the out come is.

As to the looting, it is a CRIME, a FELONY, to loot. It is a different issue from the incident, which has yet to be proven to be a crime or not.

ALSO people are getting KILLED, in these riots, from reports I have read, those deaths may not be caused by police actions. Until the riots are stopped, nothing good can happen. There is NO VALID EXCUSE to allow looting and rioting to continue.

 

[Pilgrim]

But he was.

We don't know that. There are reports that he turned around and started back toward the cop.

Another important thing to remember is he was unarmed and had his hands up.

Yes - he was unarmed. No - we don't know whether or not he had his hands up. There's no proof of that.

Guess again. Deadly force requires a reasonable expectation of a deadly threat or a reasonable threat of great bodily harm. Police officers are trained to deal with "giants" as someone here put it, even giants that are twice their size, without having to resort to using their firearm. Whether Brown was half a second away, or 2 seconds, or whatever, there was no threat with his arms up in the air in surrender.

There's that hands-up-in-the-air stuff again. There's no proof of that - none. Here's reality: if the cop can't verbally control a guy this size he has about 2 seconds to make a decision on lethal force. That silly stuff about being trained to handle hostile giants? There aren't many options once they go hostile.

It's worth almost as much as a diversion as the policing releasing the convenience store video with respect to relevance in the the shooting.

It was not a diversion - it was a fact that he robbed a convenience store and roughed up the clerk. This would certainly be a determining factor of Brown's behavior when pulled over by the cops almost immediately after robbing the store; it's extremely likely he thought he was being busted for the robbery.

An I the only one who finds it interesting that so many people instantly became emotionally invested in making sure this shooting is justified? The dead guy was an unarmed teenager shot while surrendering, and the police response in the aftermath has been outrageous. "No, no, no! He was 18, a man, not a teenager, and he was really big, really big. And what if this or that. No, the shooting was justified. The dead guy deserves to be dead." Unbelievable.

What's unbelievable is that people automatically believe that this unarmed 18 year-old adult was shot while surrendering; that this cop who had a perfect record would kill this guy without provocation just because he was black. That sounds just like something out of the Al Sharpton playbook. What about giving the cop a fair shake and assume he was justified in the shooting until evidence is brought forth to prove otherwise. His case is being brought before a grand jury as we speak/post. He'll likely be indicted no matter what, and will have to defend himself in court. There will be plenty of additional evidence that will come out during that process that hopefully will be more substantial that all the horsecr*p being generated by the blogosphere and twitter.

 

[muttly]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or are policemen not entitled to that right?

Pretty ironic isn't it. Some that clamor about the un reliability of witnesses with the death penalty argument are now saying this officer must be guilty, on the weight of a couple witnesses. They already made up their mind even though the forensic evidence and other evidence hasn't been released.Why?because the officer was a white racist, a tea party member, or something. Some like a good irony...

 

[muttly]

"They" did, but "they" didn't at the time of the shooting, and neither did the cop. The robbery was irrelevant to the shooting itself. That's why releasing the video made so many people so angry.

But none of that even matters, unless you have a deep-seeded interest in making sure this was a justifiable shooting and exonerating that cop of any and all wrongdoing, and in smearing the dead guy.

It's astonishing that people are able to find a political line to draw here. Astonishing.

You keep stating that the officer didn't know that the two were robbery suspects during the whole encounter. THIS IS INCORRECT . It was reported that the officer's initial encounter involved the jaywalking in the street, BUT RECEIVED A CALL ON THE RADIO shortly after and surmised that they were the suspects in the robbery.
It does matter in understanding the whole picture of what happened. I mean, the robbery happened a mere ten minutes before the fatal encounter. It's naive to think that it played zero role in what happened. The political line seems to be drawn with you: White cops have a history of being racists toward blacks . Therefore this white cop who killed this black person did it because he was racist That's just dangerous thinking, man and very irresponsible.

 

[LDB]

The robbery was a known incident prior to the encounter. The police may not yet have been informed. The witnesses may not have known, other than the accomplice with him at the time, but he knew it and he had no way of knowing the officer didn't know it. His actions may have been those of a guilty individual doing whatever came to him at the spur of the moment to avoid arrest for the crime.

There is eyewitness testimony he was rushing the officer as well as eyewitness testimony that he only took one step of "one centimeter" toward the officer.

There's medical reporting that he was only shot in the front, not in the back.

This is all from reporting on CNN this morning while I was eating breakfast so I can't give you any more sources than that.

 

[muttly]

Do you have a link with regards to this post?
Turtle wrote:
Ferguson, MO has a long and rich history of white cops shooting and killing the mostly black citizens of the town, most of the shootings later being determined to be unjustified, and a county prosecutor with an equally long and rich history of either negotiating the charges of the shooters down to minor infractions or not even prosecuting the cases at all. The police in Ferguson have a tradition of white cops shooting black citizens and then refusing to release the names of the shooters, just like this time. The police also have a tradition of confrontation that sparks outrage and the natural tendency of people to strike back in defense, just like this time.

 

[Turtle]

We don't know that. There are reports that he turned around and started back toward the cop.

Yes - he was unarmed. No - we don't know whether or not he had his hands up. There's no proof of that.

There's that hands-up-in-the-air stuff again. There's no proof of that - none. Here's reality: if the cop can't verbally control a guy this size he has about 2 seconds to make a decision on lethal force. That silly stuff about being trained to handle hostile giants? There aren't many options once they go hostile.

It was not a diversion - it was a fact that he robbed a convenience store and roughed up the clerk. This would certainly be a determining factor of Brown's behavior when pulled over by the cops almost immediately after robbing the store; it's extremely likely he thought he was being busted for the robbery.

What's unbelievable is that people automatically believe that this unarmed 18 year-old adult was shot while surrendering; that this cop who had a perfect record would kill this guy without provocation just because he was black. That sounds just like something out of the Al Sharpton playbook. What about giving the cop a fair shake and assume he was justified in the shooting until evidence is brought forth to prove otherwise. His case is being brought before a grand jury as we speak/post. He'll likely be indicted no matter what, and will have to defend himself in court. There will be plenty of additional evidence that will come out during that process that hopefully will be more substantial that all the horsecr*p being generated by the blogosphere and twitter.

It's clear that your position is one to find some way that the dead guy is the one at fault and to exonerate the cop, period. That's OK, I get that. That's what people do. That doesn't change the fact that there is no justification for a trained police officer shooting an unarmed man 5 times without a reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.

 

[layoutshooter]

How do you KNOW that officer's life was not in danger? No facts have yet come out. A man the size of Brown could EASILY kill someone with his bare hands.

I have no opinion either way, yet. I want to see what comes out in the final reports. Too bad Holder is involved, his bias is VERY will known. IF Obama was REALLY interested he would have tasked someone else to lead this. Someone with integrity and no history of non-enforcement, or selective enforcement, of US law and someone who is NOT out to trash the US Constitution.

Any bets Holder spouts off about racism, etc, instead of leading an investigation?

 

[Turtle]

Do you have a link with regards to this post?
Turtle wrote:
Ferguson, MO has a long and rich history of white cops shooting and killing the mostly black citizens of the town, most of the shootings later being determined to be unjustified, and a county prosecutor with an equally long and rich history of either negotiating the charges of the shooters down to minor infractions or not even prosecuting the cases at all. The police in Ferguson have a tradition of white cops shooting black citizens and then refusing to release the names of the shooters, just like this time. The police also have a tradition of confrontation that sparks outrage and the natural tendency of people to strike back in defense, just like this time.

Yes I do. Several if you like.

Why do you want them? Do you think I'm making it up or something? Are you chomping at the bit to discredit the source?

Some warn that Gov. Jay Nixon's curfew for Ferguson, Mo., may backfire - LA Times

Background of prosecutor in Ferguson case has some questioning probe's credibility - CBS News

Objectivity of prosecutor in Missouri shooting of Michael Brown is questioned - The Washington Post

 

[Turtle]

No, the looting is NOT the most important thing here, unless it's YOUR livelyhood.

I never said it was the most important thing. What I said was, you keep focusing on it like it is, however.

As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. There is NO EXCUSE to loot or riot. It solves NOTHING. It makes matters WORSE.

Those are facts.

The fact is that looting often accompanies rioting, so that it occurs should not warrant such focus. The looting is a symptom, nit a cause.

I am not focusing on ANYTHING, yet. I want to wait to see, first, if there is a real investigation, and, second, what the out come is.

You're not focusing on it, but you keep mentioning it.

As to the looting, it is a CRIME, a FELONY, to loot. It is a different issue from the incident, which has yet to be proven to be a crime or not.

Thank you for not focusing on the looting.

ALSO people are getting KILLED, in these riots, from reports I have read, those deaths may not be caused by police actions. Until the riots are stopped, nothing good can happen. There is NO VALID EXCUSE to allow looting and rioting to continue.

No valid excuse to allow what? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot.

 

[Ragman]

Pretty ironic isn't it. Some that clamor about the un reliability of witnesses with the death penalty argument are now saying this officer must be guilty, on the weight of a couple witnesses. They already made up their mind even though the forensic evidence and other evidence hasn't been released.Why?because the officer was a white racist, a tea party member, or something. Some like a good irony...

Where did you come up with such balder dash? I've yet to see any anti dealth penalty person make any such claim.

 

[Turtle]

How do you KNOW that officer's life was not in danger? No facts have yet come out. A man the size of Brown could EASILY kill someone with his bare hands.

If the officer felt he was in danger, he wouldn't have stopped and confronted the two in the street in the first place, nor gotten out of the vehicle, he would have called for backup right away. Instead, he was confident enough to exit the vehicle and confront a man twice his size. Of course, a gun can give you that kind of confidence.

 

[layoutshooter]

If the officer felt he was in danger, he wouldn't have stopped and confronted the two in the street in the first place, nor gotten out of the vehicle, he would have called for backup right away. Instead, he was confident enough to exit the vehicle and confront a man twice his size. Of course, a gun can give you that kind of confidence.

Gee, is not his job to stop and confront people who are breaking laws? Yes, he SHOULD have called for back up, then again, maybe he did not believe that someone would go ballistic when asked to walk on the sidewalk, where they belong, IF that is what happened.

I am not going to "guess" what happened, I DON'T KNOW, and neither does anyone else in here. I have no idea if this is a case for "firearms macho", neither does anyone in here. We don't yet know EXACTLY what happened. No one in here knows the officer that I am aware of. No one in here knows Mr. Brown, that I am aware of.

Since we are NOT on a jury, no facts are fully yet determined, MAYBE it would be best to let this play out.

 

[Pilgrim]

It's clear that your position is one to find some way that the dead guy is the one at fault and to exonerate the cop, period. That's OK, I get that. That's what people do. That doesn't change the fact that there is no justification for a trained police officer shooting an unarmed man 5 times without a reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.

No - you don't get it. My position from the start has been to see what the complete investigation reveals - period. And at this point let me say that I don't think it's appropriate using personal pronouns in this kind of discussion/argument but it looks like we're stuck with it. "...exonerate the cop...that's what people do." Sorry, but that's not what people do and in most cases it's exactly the opposite. The last part of your last sentence makes the case: if he's being aggressively threatened by an individual that could kill him with his bare hands, what's he expected to do? Keep in mind he's got to make that decision is less time than it took to read this sentence.

 

[aristotle]

Imagine a Gentle Giant robs and roughs up a small Asian store clerk. Imagine it's caught on video.

Imagine same Gentle Giant is confronted by a cop minutes later and punches cop so hard the bones around the cop's eye socket are broken.

Imagine Gentle Giant decides to lunge at cop.


Lots of facts yet to be determined. Reserving judgment at this point seems prudent.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...o-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown

 

[Turtle]

Gee, is not his job to stop and confront people who are breaking laws?

For jaywalking on a residential street that doesn't get much traffic? Seriously? No, that's not his job, unless he's Barley Fife on a tear, or a bully cop wanting to show people who's boss.

 

[layoutshooter]

For jaywalking on a residential street that doesn't get much traffic? Seriously? No, that's not his job, unless he's Barley Fife on a tear, or a bully cop wanting to show people who's boss.

OR, since neither of us KNOW what happened, Officer Wilson stopped, told them NOT to walk in the street, and Mr. Brown went wacko. That too is likely to have happened.

Not his job to enforce laws? Since when?

It makes no difference right now, no facts have been fully determined, and in this case, they are likely not to matter. Those who are leading the investigation are not likely out for justice, they have never been interested in justice before.

Neither of us know, unless you were there, I sure was not. I would likely never find myself in such a situation, I avoid cities as much as I can, and once out of this business that will become even easier. I have no use for big cities. They are dirty, they stink and they are full of crime. That's enough for me to stay out.

 

[Turtle]

No - you don't get it. My position from the start has been to see what the complete investigation reveals - period. And at this point let me say that I don't think it's appropriate using personal pronouns in this kind of discussion/argument but it looks like we're stuck with it. "...exonerate the cop...that's what people do." Sorry, but that's not what people do and in most cases it's exactly the opposite. The last part of your last sentence makes the case: if he's being aggressively threatened by an individual that could kill him with his bare hands, what's he expected to do? Keep in mind he's got to make that decision is less time than it took to read this sentence.

Statistics show that very, very few cops are ever convicted of a bad shooting, even when it's clear they were trigger happy. The reality is most people will believe the cops, or at the very least give them the benefit of the doubt, in the absence of video. If there is video, we want to see more of it, to find that one little thing that can be blown up to justify the shooting. The same thing happens in reverse, where any scintilla of information about the dead black guy gets blown up as being not only plausible, but highly probable, like an 18 year old being able to kill an experienced cop with his bare hands, and can lunge at the cop from 30 feet away and kill him is less than a second, two tops, because he's Black Chuck Norris.

But no, "aggressively threatened" in and of itself doesn't justify deadly force. There must be a reasonable deadly threat, or a reasonable expectation of great bodily injury. Scared and panicked doesn't qualify.

I do have to wonder if the two in the middle of the street were white, if they'd have been confronted in the first place.

 

[Turtle]

OR, since neither of us KNOW what happened, Officer Wilson stopped, told them NOT to walk in the street, and Mr. Brown went wacko. That too is likely to have happened.

Why is it "likely" to have happened?

Not his job to enforce laws? Since when?

Maybe if Brown had dropped his box of cigars the cop would have issued a citation for littering, too. Enforcing a jaywalking law in the middle of the day on a residential street that has very little traffic is ridiculous. Ridiculous. Unless, you want to show someone who's boss and exercise your authority unnecessarily.

 

[layoutshooter]

"I do have to wonder if the two in the middle of the street were white, if they'd have been confronted in the first place."

They would have been in my neighborhood when I was growing up. By white cops too. We were not allowed to walk in the street. We were not allowed to get away with much of anything. That is why there was hardly any crime in my neighborhood when I was growing up. It was WONDERFUL living in a quiet, safe, area. Too bad it's not like that anymore.