Jump to content

Menu

So disturbed by this shooting, and the aftermath


AlmiraGulch

Recommended Posts

I was on vacation in Paris when Katrina hit. I'll never forget sitting in the park seeing Parisians all around me reading newspapers about how badly  America handles situations with its poor and its minorities.

 

I was camping when this the shooting and riots happened too. Recently got back. It's like a flashback.  Everyone around the world is watching, and shaking their heads.  Even Ayatollah Khamenei is tweeting about it.

 

It's not that I care what the rest of the world thinks- more that it's showing me just how true some of those negative perceptions are.  The shooting was awful.  The aftermath is shameful. The only good I can see coming out of it is increased awareness of how divided and oppressive the atmosphere is in some parts of our country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 409
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

 

 

Autopsy shows that Brown was shot six times twice in the head. One of the shots to the head was into the "top" of his head.

 

Which by itself doesn't tell us anything.

 

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,†he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.â€

 

If the officer's claim (not sure what it is yet) is that he was being charged by someone 6'4" and 290 lbs, this bit of the autopsy isn't particularly useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know why you're trying so hard to vilify Brown...I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. Ever hear that old phrase, "do not speak ill of the dead?" He can't defend himself, so it seems pretty crappy to be playing judge and jury when you don't have the details. I thought people on this forum were big on not blaming the victim This young man was NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH. He is not at fault, and HE DID NOT DESERVE THE TREATMENT HE RECEIVED.

 

In fairness, as the investigation is ongoing and we don't know all of the evidence available, then you cannot say the bolded with any degree of certainty.  If Mr. Brown did assault an officer, grab for his gun or charged him when the officer pursued, then yes, he would bear the responsibility for his own death and the officer would have been defending himself.

He may also bear only partial responsibility, or he may bear absolutely none.

 

I certainly agree that at the macro level we have serious inequalities in the justice system and how certain communities are policed, however at the micro level we cannot assume that only the officer is at fault or that Mr. Brown is a victim until the investigation is complete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which by itself doesn't tell us anything.

 

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,†he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.â€

 

If the officer's claim (not sure what it is yet) is that he was being charged by someone 6'4" and 290 lbs, this bit of the autopsy isn't particularly useful.

 

But is that likely after being shot five times, one of those in the head? The article also states that they believed the shot to the top of the head was the last one because it would have caused him to lose consciousness.

 

The clothing wasn't involved in this autopsy so I think there are still some questions but  I find it hard to believe anyone could charge someone after being shot in the head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is pretty safe to say that in most cases, a trained police officer should not use deadly force against an unarmed opponent.   Is force appropriate, yes. Deadly force? Shot six times including in the head?   Remember the whole thing started because the murdered young man was stopped by the officer because he was jaywalking

 

Maybe I'd give more benefit of the doubt if we hadn't seen how this police force handles dealing with its citizenry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But is that likely after being shot five times, one of those in the head? The article also states that they believed the shot to the top of the head was the last one because it would have caused him to lose consciousness.

 

The clothing wasn't involved in this autopsy so I think there are still some questions but I find it hard to believe anyone could charge someone after being shot in the head.

The pathologist stated the shot to the head was likely the last shot so yes, it would have ended there. It is also possible the final head shot was discharged as he was falling. The results by themselves don't tell us much without the other forensic evidence.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The pathologist stated the shot to the head was likely the last shot so yes, it would have ended there. It is also possible the final head shot was discharged as he was falling. The results by themselves don't tell us much without the other forensic evidence.

 

But there were two separate shots to the head. So this assumes that he was still charging after he had already been shot in the eye, because it's the shot to the top of the head that killed him.

 

Also, how low would he have had to have been running at six-foot-four for the officer to get that angle on the shot? That doesn't really track...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is pretty safe to say that in most cases, a trained police officer should not use deadly force against an unarmed opponent. Is force appropriate, yes. Deadly force? Shot six times including in the head? Remember the whole thing started because the murdered young man was stopped by the officer because he was jaywalking.

 

Maybe I'd give more benefit of the doubt if we hadn't seen how this police force handles dealing with its citizenry.

If (I repeat if) Mr. Brown escalated the situation by assaulting the officer then the purpose of the stop is not relevant. And again, someone that size charging an officer is not a non-dangerous situation. It is quite possible this was excessive force, but it is also possible it wasn't.

I also don't believe it is fair to hold one officer responsible for he actions of others. Officer Wilson should be judged on his actions and his actions alone .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know where to start in responding you. Of course he can't be charged with robbery now. But the store owners have said that BEFORE HE WAS KILLED they were not planning on taking action. It was (apparently) a shopper that called the police. The store owners weren't interested in pressing charges even while he was still alive. Also, the police took the video from the store before they had a warrant, and it looks like the sole purpose for that was to start defaming Mike Brown because of all of the other information coming out. And just because some opportunistic criminals (most of whom are NOT EVEN FROM FERGUSON) looted the store doesn't have a thing to do with Brown or what he did or where he was. That's just people being assholes. And you can't see money thrown down in the video because you can't actually see the counter and what's happening there, which is why as far as evidence goes, the video is crap. No one will ever know, unless the store owner or cashier specifically comes out and answers the question, which I highly doubt at this point.

 

I'm not saying he should have shoved the guy, but one bad decision doesn't make him a thug. His record was clean. Teachers who have known him his whole life spoke highly of him. Was he perfect? Of course not. Are you? I know I'm not. But he hardly had a track record as a thug.

 

We don't know what kind of scuffle there might have been. Most of the witnesses are saying the officer manhandled Brown, and that he was trying to get away. And as for not getting out of the street...well, if you knew the neighborhood, you'd know that people do that. They walk in the street. Constantly. It wasn't strange that he was in the street, and it wasn't strange that he would not want to get on the sidewalk. In my own neighborhood, people routinely walk in the street...don't they do that where you're from? And nobody around here has ever gotten taken to task for it. An 18-year-old is a very, very young adult. In a lot of ways, still a kid. Just because a 19-year-old you know was mature enough to be in the army doesn't mean everyone is. Just because he was legally an adult doesn't mean he wasn't still very, very young, and still learning.

 

And if you grew up in a town known for police brutality toward people JUST LIKE YOU I think your interactions of the police would be very, very different. We don't know if he "mouthed off," we don't even know if he scuffled. It does appear that he was trying to get away, which makes sense given that he knew other young black men had been illegally arrested and beaten in his town. Wouldn't you want to run away from that?

 

I don't know why you're trying so hard to vilify Brown...I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. Ever hear that old phrase, "do not speak ill of the dead?" He can't defend himself, so it seems pretty crappy to be playing judge and jury when you don't have the details. I thought people on this forum were big on not blaming the victim This young man was NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH. He is not at fault, and HE DID NOT DESERVE THE TREATMENT HE RECEIVED.

 

Good grief-just lost a long reply... too tired to type it again, so I will leave you the best of what I came up with.

 

I will tell you a true story about a family member that reminds me of this case. My Niece was hit by a car. The driver was in the wrong legally, but it was Niece that got hurt. The driver hit her because she was not paying attention. She was on her phone and didn't even slow down. Now niece was not legally at fault. However, if she had made better choices, she would not have been hurt. Niece just walked out on the street and assumed (wrongly) that the driver would stop. She did not. Niece should have waited till oncoming cars were stopped or passed to cross the street-not because it is wrong to cross, but because it is safer. BTW Niece is fine-just banged up. She did learn a valuable lesson though about taking care of your own actions. I see the case of Michael Brown in a similar light. It very well may play out that the officer is in the wrong (and admittedly the evidence so far is pretty damning), but Michael most certainly made some very ill-advised decisions leading up to his tragic death. He had the power to make better choices and did not. He could have just gotten out of the street, he could have not resisted (even if the officer was wrong), he could have not run and if he was concerned with how his character was portrayed, he would have behaved like a decent human being in that store.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there were two separate shots to the head. So this assumes that he was still charging after he had already been shot in the eye, because it's the shot to the top of the head that killed him.

 

Also, how low would he have had to have been running at six-foot-four for the officer to get that angle on the shot? That doesn't really track...

And those are all questions that can be addressed via the forensic investigation. I can come up with various scenarios on how that wound could occur, but speculation by any of us is worthless.

A quick theory is that the last shot hit as he was falling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief-just lost a long reply... too tired to type it again, so I will leave you the best of what I came up with.

 

I will tell you a true story about a family member that reminds me of this case. My Niece was hit by a car. The driver was in the wrong legally, but it was Niece that got hurt. The driver hit her because she was not paying attention. She was on her phone and didn't even slow down. Now niece was not legally at fault. However, if she had made better choices, she would not have been hurt. Niece just walked out on the street and assumed (wrongly) that the driver would stop. She did not. Niece should have waited till oncoming cars were stopped or passed to cross the street-not because it is wrong to cross, but because it is safer. BTW Niece is fine-just banged up. She did learn a valuable lesson though about taking care of your own actions. I see the case of Michael Brown in a similar light. It very well may play out that the officer is in the wrong (and admittedly the evidence so far is pretty damning), but Michael most certainly made some very ill-advised decisions leading up to his tragic death. He had the power to make better choices and did not. He could have just gotten out of the street, he could have not resisted (even if the officer was wrong), he could have not run and if he was concerned with how his character was portrayed, he would have behaved like a decent human being in that store.

 

I have to disagree with a lot of this. If the officer used excessive force/committed murder, then there is no merit to blaming Mr. Brown for jaywalking or whatever happened in that store. If he did assault the officer, then yes, that is part of this incident and relevant. Previous actions are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting but not surprising how the "facts" have already changed a lot.

 

I am for letting the people with the evidence figure out what happened.

 

Trying to get an officer's gun - if that is what happened - is asking to be shot IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief-just lost a long reply... too tired to type it again, so I will leave you the best of what I came up with.

 

I will tell you a true story about a family member that reminds me of this case. My Niece was hit by a car. The driver was in the wrong legally, but it was Niece that got hurt. The driver hit her because she was not paying attention. She was on her phone and didn't even slow down. Now niece was not legally at fault. However, if she had made better choices, she would not have been hurt. Niece just walked out on the street and assumed (wrongly) that the driver would stop. She did not. Niece should have waited till oncoming cars were stopped or passed to cross the street-not because it is wrong to cross, but because it is safer. BTW Niece is fine-just banged up. She did learn a valuable lesson though about taking care of your own actions. I see the case of Michael Brown in a similar light. It very well may play out that the officer is in the wrong (and admittedly the evidence so far is pretty damning), but Michael most certainly made some very ill-advised decisions leading up to his tragic death. He had the power to make better choices and did not. He could have just gotten out of the street, he could have not resisted (even if the officer was wrong), he could have not run and if he was concerned with how his character was portrayed, he would have behaved like a decent human being in that store.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you just have no right to use words like "if he had behaved like a decent human being." Everything else that has been said about him up to this points to "decent human being." This is one isolated incident, and shouldn't be the only thing people take away about his life, even if that is clearly what the Ferguson P.D. was hoping for. Again, we all make mistakes. I'm glad there's no secret footage of some of my less-than-proud moments, because I'm sure that there have been things that would make some look at me as "not a decent human being."

 

Stop blaming the victim. A young man is dead, and it's a severe injustice to him and his family to blame him for an officer shooting him SIX TIMES.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief-just lost a long reply... too tired to type it again, so I will leave you the best of what I came up with.

 

I will tell you a true story about a family member that reminds me of this case. My Niece was hit by a car. The driver was in the wrong legally, but it was Niece that got hurt. The driver hit her because she was not paying attention. She was on her phone and didn't even slow down. Now niece was not legally at fault. However, if she had made better choices, she would not have been hurt. Niece just walked out on the street and assumed (wrongly) that the driver would stop. She did not. Niece should have waited till oncoming cars were stopped or passed to cross the street-not because it is wrong to cross, but because it is safer. BTW Niece is fine-just banged up. She did learn a valuable lesson though about taking care of your own actions. I see the case of Michael Brown in a similar light. It very well may play out that the officer is in the wrong (and admittedly the evidence so far is pretty damning), but Michael most certainly made some very ill-advised decisions leading up to his tragic death. He had the power to make better choices and did not. He could have just gotten out of the street, he could have not resisted (even if the officer was wrong), he could have not run and if he was concerned with how his character was portrayed, he would have behaved like a decent human being in that store.

 

 

I'm very glad to hear your niece is fine, but would you be giving the same lesson if your niece had been killed by the driver instead of being fine? What if she had died, and you weren't sure she had any culpability because she was no longer alive to tell you she had been on the phone? Would you feel so charitable to the driver then?

 

I understand what you're saying. I always tell my son not to assume and that it's better to be alive than to be right just because you had the right of way or were in the crosswalk. But I don't think your niece's incident is a good example for this case. Thankfully she was alive to tell you about her part in the accident; that's a huge difference right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we could all take a deep breath, and turn our frustration toward something that I hope we all agree on? The school district in Ferguson, which was supposed to have their first day of school last week, has now been closed for this whole week as well. That means that they'll have missed a good seven or eight days of classes before their school year starts. I'm so angry for those children, who probably just want something normal in their lives, and who deserve an education, and instead, are being forced away from what may be one of the few safe (not necessarily physically, but just generally), places available to them right now.

 

I get why they made the decision, although I really doubt the schools themselves would have been a target, but I know they're worried about the students traveling to and from school. But it still just makes me so mad for them! And all because so many people are coming from outside their community to make trouble. It's sickening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stop blaming the victim. A young man is dead, and it's a severe injustice to him and his family to blame him for an officer shooting him SIX TIMES.

 

Again, we don't know for certain he is a victim.  *IF* he was engaged in an assault on a police officer (a felony) then he is not the victim.

 

Which is why we should all step back and let the investigations, both local and federal, look at the facts and determine what happened.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but you just have no right to use words like "if he had behaved like a decent human being." Everything else that has been said about him up to this points to "decent human being." This is one isolated incident, and shouldn't be the only thing people take away about his life, even if that is clearly what the Ferguson P.D. was hoping for. Again, we all make mistakes. I'm glad there's no secret footage of some of my less-than-proud moments, because I'm sure that there have been things that would make some look at me as "not a decent human being."

 

Stop blaming the victim. A young man is dead, and it's a severe injustice to him and his family to blame him for an officer shooting him SIX TIMES.

 

Absolutely we all make mistakes and when I have made some doozies- I was not behaving like a decent human being. In some, I have had to ask for forgiveness from those that I have wronged. Thank goodness I was young in the pre-smartphone era as well. However, I am not one to mince words. If something is wrong-it is wrong. How would one describe someone willing to rough up a store clerk possibly only over asking for ID? Nice things don't come to mind here. Nice people don't do things like that. Let's say it was your Mom working in the store-what kind of words would you use to describe someone that treated her in that way? How about if that person also robbed the store?

 

Why does the fact that he is dead, make it not ok to talk about his bad points. My Dad is dead-he liked to drink too much. Grandpa liked the ladies too much. Nana was crusty and could make mean comments. A neighbor was shot by the local police swat team-he was nuts and threatened to kill his family, which he was holding hostage. I lost a classmate who was murdered by a neighbor. He was a drug addict that was messing around with the dealer's wife-bad idea...

 

Why is it wrong to be describe his behavior as being a contributing factor in his own death?

 

Have you ever used a firearm? Six shots can be discharged pretty quickly. Some could have been after he was already falling over. I don't see the number of shots as being terribly important other than a forensic standpoint. One good shot could have killed him just as well. We also don't know how the case will shake out. The officer has accused Michael of coming at him and trying to get his firearm. That would be a reason to blame him for the officer shooting him 6 times. We do not know if it is an injustice yet. I am not assuming that part of it either way.

 

I have said that IF the officer is found in the wrong-he should be prosecuted and to the fullest extent of the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very glad to hear your niece is fine, but would you be giving the same lesson if your niece had been killed by the driver instead of being fine? What if she had died, and you weren't sure she had any culpability because she was no longer alive to tell you she had been on the phone? Would you feel so charitable to the driver then?

 

I understand what you're saying. I always tell my son not to assume and that it's better to be alive than to be right just because you had the right of way or were in the crosswalk. But I don't think your niece's incident is a good example for this case. Thankfully she was alive to tell you about her part in the accident; that's a huge difference right there.

 

Yes-we are thankful Niece is fine. It was a long time ago. My mother and several others witnessed the accident. I do not feel charitable to the driver. She was wrong. I would guess I probably would use the story, but then-who really knows...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice people absolutely can do things like that. Nice people can have bad moments and do terrible things. Character assassination. That is the only evidence anyone has of him "not being a nice guy." One action doesn't determine the whole picture of who someone is.

 

And the definition of victim that I'm thinking of reads: "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency." I think it's pretty safe to say that no matter the circumstances surrounding his death, Mike Brown suffered an injurious action, to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice people absolutely can do things like that. Nice people can have bad moments and do terrible things. Character assassination. That is the only evidence anyone has of him "not being a nice guy." One action doesn't determine the whole picture of who someone is.

 

And the definition of victim that I'm thinking of reads: "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency." I think it's pretty safe to say that no matter the circumstances surrounding his death, Mike Brown suffered an injurious action, to say the least.

 

You are torturing that definition a bit.  Someone killed in self defense is generally not referred to as a victim, especially in a legal sense.  Depending on what the facts show, Mr. Brown may or may not be a victim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are torturing that definition a bit.  Someone killed in self defense is generally not referred to as a victim, especially in a legal sense.  Depending on what the facts show, Mr. Brown may or may not be a victim.

 

Torturing the definition I got from the dictionary? Ok, then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems someone (National Guard?) could surround schools and protect them. Maybe the main concern is getting to and from the schools.

 

I think that is the main concern, but it's still so disheartening to think about these children sitting around and worrying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with a lot of this. If the officer used excessive force/committed murder, then there is no merit to blaming Mr. Brown for jaywalking or whatever happened in that store. If he did assault the officer, then yes, that is part of this incident and relevant. Previous actions are not.

 

I was not talking of the criminal case. In my original post, I was commenting on how I did not like how some online and in the news were portraying Michael as just some poor kid out and about that got shot for no apparent reason. Other sources and reports seemed to show that was not the case. First-he was a 19year old Man-not some kid. Then he at the very least roughed up a store clerk and possibly robbed the store-not sounding to innocent. And lastly he is accused of mouthing off to police, scuffling with the officer-possibly trying to take the firearm and then fleeing. None of those are good ideas. He is obviously not some innocent young thing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you prefer intentionally misapplying it?

 

No, I would prefer it be recognized that I quoted it as written...I didn't snip it or take it out of context, and I think it applies here. I don't know how much more clear that can be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is the main concern, but it's still so disheartening to think about these children sitting around and worrying.

 

I agree it's disheartening. Just when they need their peers and friends in some sort of normalized setting, that's not available.

 

Over here we lived through Oscar Grant, so I feel for you all. Near me there have been protests in Oakland for Ferguson.

 

:grouphug: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I would prefer it be recognized that I quoted it as written...I didn't snip it or take it out of context, and I think it applies here. I don't know how much more clear that can be.

 

A woman shoots someone attempting to r*pe her. The rapist suffered an "injurious action."  Would you refer to him as a victim?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman shoots someone attempting to r*pe her. The rapist suffered an "injurious action."  Would you refer to him as a victim?

 

 

Of a shooting? Yes. Of a heinous crime? Of course not. Don't be obtuse. 

 

Mike Brown was the victim of a shooting. Possibly the victim of a murder. I don't understand what dog you have in this race that you're being so difficult about it. This is my community. I have watched every news conference live, and more news coverage than I care to think about. He was a victim, period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of a shooting? Yes. Of a heinous crime? Of course not. Don't be obtuse. 

 

Mike Brown was the victim of a shooting. Possibly the victim of a murder. I don't understand what dog you have in this race that you're being so difficult about it. This is my community. I have watched every news conference live, and more news coverage than I care to think about. He was a victim, period.

 

This is becoming a bit silly.  No, someone injured by someone else acting in self defense is not a victim.  "Injurious" as it is used in the definition of "victim" is referring to a wrongful act.  And you know very well you would never refer to someone shot while attempting to r*pe someone as the victim of a shooting.

 

You are certainly free to view Mr. Brown as a victim regardless of the facts, but that doesn't make you correct. Legally he may (and likely could) be a victim.  We simply don't have the answer to that yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is becoming a bit silly,  No, someone injured by someone else acting in self defense is not a victim.  "Injurious" as it is used in the definition of "victim" is referring to a wrongful act.  And you know very well you would never refer to someone shot while attempting to r*pe someone as the victim of a shooting.

 

You are certainly free to view Mr. Brown as a victim regardless of the facts, but that doesn't make you correct. Legally he may (and likely could) be a victim.  We simply don't have the answer to that yet.

 

I think we've said all there is to say to each other. You are only interested in being argumentative, and I'm done taking the bait. A young man is dead, and I don't feel like explaining anything further to someone who is neither interested in the actual case, nor a true conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've said all there is to say to each other. You are only interested in being argumentative, and I'm done taking the bait. A young man is dead, and I don't feel like explaining anything further to someone who is neither interested in the actual case, nor a true conversation.

Not interested in the actual case? How silly of me to wait until the facts are in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrsmommy this is my community too. Praying you are never on jury duty. Because it is on the interet or tv does not make it true. An autopsy done in a funeral home with out all fact (xrays or clothes) is not giving a whole picture. If guy who just rob a store is in a diffrent mineset than someone who is just jaywalking. this a teen who was force by his parent (ie taken forceflly) to his ged school whose teacher were caught saying he was a trouble maker. They said they were going to take him to collge ummm it is not a sleep over school or even starting class this week. I wasn't there I don't know what happen. I want to wait for the grand jury decide on the facts. In that area always petty theif is not reported due to mob like crime and fear of retripution so store not reporting holds no water. Snitches get stitches is real. If they weren't going to report why didclerk go to lock the door? Please pray for our. Communnity it needs healing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Praying you are never on jury duty.

 

Please, let's get a grip. There's an ocean of difference between people discussing anonymously on the internet and people who are charged to follow the law and determine the course of someone's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been participating in this thread, but I'm wondering how anyone could criticize people for wanting to wait until all the evidence is in before casting a final judgment.

 

I can understand people having opinions on both sides, but opinions aren't facts -- and in this case, even the news reports haven't been consistent, so it's very difficult to determine what really happened. It seems like there is an agenda and quite a bit of sensationalism on both sides, and that makes it hard to know what to believe.

 

I know what I think so far, but I'm not going to post it, because it's just my opinion and is just as likely to be wrong as it is to be correct.

 

The one thing I will say is that I feel so sorry for the people who live in that area. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez. I've jaywalked. I shoplifted once as a teen. I've even disregarded police instructions at a rally.....

Your definition of jaywalking is what?

 

I havent been to Ferguson in twenty years (before these people moved from the inner city to the neighborhood), but there are enough inner city youth that have moved to my neighborhood that I know what jaywalking means when it involves thugs, and when it involves a police stop.Jaywalking in this context has nothing to do with crossing the street.it has everything to do with disregarding the rule of law, and preventing normal citizens from going about their business. I think we need a national task force to come up with a plan to integrate thugs into society...be a good thing for Sharpton to work on. The mothers would thank them for giving them a chance to sleep without gunfire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been participating in this thread, but I'm wondering how anyone could criticize people for wanting to wait until all the evidence is in before casting a final judgment.

 

I can understand people having opinions on both sides, but opinions aren't facts -- and in this case, even the news reports haven't been consistent, so it's very difficult to determine what really happened. It seems like there is an agenda and quite a bit of sensationalism on both sides, and that makes it hard to know what to believe.

 

I know what I think so far, but I'm not going to post it, because it's just my opinion and is just as likely to be wrong as it is to be correct.

 

The one thing I will say is that I feel so sorry for the people who live in that area. :(

 

Because we have about 150 years of seeing how white police officers assault young black men without much consequence. Anyone who has studied US history can't help but become a bit jaded on this topic. 

 

In our own lifetimes, remember Rodney King- on the ground, surrounded by a crowd of officers, being repeated beaten with clubs, and they were acquitted of criminal charges.  Many of those officers ended up being convicted in civil court.  Because cameras were there. How often had that happened without cameras?    I was a (white) kid at the time, having never heard a negative thing about police officers except maybe being puzzled by a rap song or two.   What an eye opener.

 

 

Another case in point, the man linked earlier upthread from the same town who was picked up- erroneously - beaten by cops - then charged with the crime of getting his blood on their uniforms.  Seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions aren't facts, but one fact is that a black teen was shot dead as a result of either jaywalking, cigar robbery or charging, unarmed, towards a policeman.

 

I don't think police should be allowed to shoot someone dead for that ( opinion ).

 

Police should be proactive and work to avoid these situations ( also opinion, but who's gonna argue with that one! :) )

 

If the "teen" is a three-hundred pound thug who is charging at the cop, the policeman isn't supposed to shoot?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the "teen" is a three-hundred pound thug who is charging at the cop, the policeman isn't supposed to shoot?

 

He isn't supposed to shoot to kill.  

 

And let's say allegedly charging.  I mean, really. Does anyone actually think this unarmed kid was charging at the armed officer? I could see that happening if, say, he was high on meth, but he wasn't. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, I do not know what happened or who is at fault. There is not enough information out for me to make a judgement. I do want to give my opinion, although I am sure it will go against what others believe.

 

Opinions aren't facts, but one fact is that a black teen was shot dead as a result of either jaywalking, cigar robbery or charging, unarmed, towards a policeman.

 

I don't think police should be allowed to shoot someone dead for that ( opinion ).

 

Police should be proactive and work to avoid these situations ( also opinion, but who's gonna argue with that one! :) )

For the jaywalking, it is against the law. Years ago, I was in Gatlinburg with my family (I was a teenager at the time), and my mom and I crossed the street. It was not a crossing zone, and a police officer did see us, and immediately came over to reprimand us. We were very cooperative and since we were not standing in the middle blocking traffic and our purpose was just to cross, he gave my mother a warning. Regardless of the fact that we weren't from the area, we still did something illegal and got stopped. So for the jaywalking, the police have an obligation to stop a person for that. Of course, no one should get shot for jaywalking, but it does explain why he was stopped.

 

After he was stopped, we do not know how Mr. Brown acted, or if he was or wasn't a threat. It is not fair for me to pass judgement on that, considering that I have not heard enough evidence either way. But if the video of the store robbery are accurate, I could see how someone would easily feel threatened by a person as tall and large as this man. He did put his hands on the store clerk, so who is to say he wouldn't a police officer? But again, not taking sides, just simply saying I could see how someone could feel threatened. And we do not know if the officer knew he wasn't armed. Fact is him being a bigger gentleman, he wouldn't have to be armed to cause injury to the officer.

 

It is very sad that a young man lost his life. I hope that they will get all the information they need, and if the police officer is at fault and the young man was not acting violently and was being cooperative, I do hope the police officer is charged for this. But as of right now, no one knows. It is all just a bunch of opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have about 150 years of seeing how white police officers assault young black men without much consequence. Anyone who has studied US history can't help but become a bit jaded on this topic. 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you just have no right to use words like "if he had behaved like a decent human being."

In the past year, I've read about a mentally disabled man, who was assaulted by police. His clothes were too light for the weather, he was bicycling around in the early morning (coming home from work), and he didn't respond to their directions (because he didn't understand them in English). 

 

I saw video of a man being put in a chokehold by an officer (which had not been approved practice for years) until he could no longer breathe, and then died.

 

I read about a man who was tasered twice while signing that he was deaf and then beaten until unconscious. And another case where police tasered a deaf man having a diabetic episode.

 

So the assumption that everyone is capable of obeying random police instructions is flawed. Many people have mental problems, hearing problems, and/or don't speak English well, yet are law-abiding souls. That's leaving aside racism, which has been shown, time and time again, to be a major problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, if anyone wants to discuss the fact that people's Constitutional rights are being trampled on in Ferguson, or the disgusting fact that looters and other criminals are coming to Ferguson from around the country just to make trouble when the people of Ferguson are just looking for peace and justice, or the fact that children are being denied their right to education because of the violence, I will happily continue to participate in those conversations. I will also be happy to talk about how we can help the folks in Ferguson.

 

I will not, however, continue to be part of a conversation where people are unjustly accusing a deceased young man of things they have no idea he did, or generally maligning him and assassinating his character. I've said my piece, and I'm shocked and saddened by some of the responses from people (some of who aren't even from the area, and don't know what the heck they're talking about, because, let's face it, if you're not from here, you don't understand the complexities of the situation, and don't even tell me you, because that's just insulting to locals), and I'm just not going to do anything to encourage that part of the conversation any longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ugly truth is white privelege also includes right to life.  There is no logical explanation for why a trained experienced officer with other tools in his arsenal, could not physically subdue a man who had been shot 4 times. From the moment he was perceived a treat Brown was doomed to death.  James Eagan was very much armed and actually killed innocent people unprovoked and officers managed to get his out in one piece. Incidentally he was never branded a thug or another derogatory remark. They went to great pains to understand him. As we see even on here Brown does not often even get that consideration. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...