DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 15, 2014, 12:31:21 PM
-
Ferguson Police Officer Shot and Killed Michael Brown After Alleged Robbery
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/darren-wilson-shot-and-killed-michael-brown.html
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvFZjhvIgAEVyHJ.jpg)
-
This is the problem with little bits of information being released....because now those who are already convinced that the officer was in the wrong, will start rotating their stories that "even if..." as in even if this fella was involved in a robbery just before the controntation, the officer wasn't justified in shooting an unarmed man.....a black man at that.
In other words, regardless of any facts that come out that diminish what supposed "lameness" is in the officers' version, nothing will convince their already made-up-mind of what must have happened. It's the treyvon martin syndrome happening once again
-
Is the death penalty appropriate for stealing a box of cigars?
Now if one is white, of course.
And a machine guns and full-battle gear is required to quell a minor riot in the burbs.
-
actually race might not be too much of a factor . we actually have a precedent of white students getting peppered sprayed for blocking an officers path. uc davis I believe. race issue is finally losing alittle steam .
-
Is the death penalty appropriate for stealing a box of cigars?
Now if one is white, of course.
And a machine guns and full-battle gear is required to quell a minor riot in the burbs.
A) You weren't there, so the idea that this fella was "executed for stealing cigars" is complete BS
B) This would have the same scrutiny and throughness of an investigation regardless of what race anyone was
C) When the riots become less violent, then the officers should absolutely tone down the military look
-
The military crap was unnecessary in the first place.
What has happened is that the Army has a lot of leftover surplus crap from Bush's Folly, and they are offering it to local municipalities for "fighting terrorism".
If the cops throw teargas grenades, they can expect to have them thrown back at them. If they use flashbang grenades and sonic weapons designed to drive people crazy, they can expect to have a lot of crazy people rioting. If the goal is to make the community hate their local police, then this is how to do it. After this overkill, there will be any successful "Officer Friendly" campaigns or PAL programs. Making enemies of rioters means that the police are also telling the rest of the population that they think of the locals as a bunch if ignorant, violent savages.
One result of this will be the replacement of Ferguson's White cops, the police chief and the defeat of the present White folks in the local government.
-
Your opinion on what was or wasn't necessary to stem RIOTS is duly noted. The points that you decided to avoid like the plague remains unchanged:
A) You weren't there, so the inferrence that this fella was "executed for stealing cigars" is complete AMBE
B) This would have the same scrutiny and throughness of an investigation regardless of what race anyone was
C) When the riots become less violent, then the officers should absolutely tone down the military look
-
Here's something that also now presents itself. The supposed "eye-witness", Brown's buddy, who has been reading a script-like itnerary of what happened, with every camera pointed at him, including how they were "just walking down the street, minding their own busness, when some cop car suddenly decided to harrass and assault 2 black guys", apparently neglected to add the part where he and his buddy Brown had just performed a strong armed robbery, facilitating the police in looking for these 2. Hardly just some random coming across 2 black guys looking to execute them....which is how folks like JJ are trying shape what supposedly happened
The credibility of the one "eye-witness" is getting more and more lame, lame, lame
-
This is like waiting for another shoe to drop , and a shoe store is being dumped out one shoe at a time.
What is the whole story and will it ever be available?
-
Probably, though some details may be obscured
-
It is said that the cop did not know about this alleged cigar theft.
-
Said by who?.....in other words, how do you know that as a fact?
-
Yeah, I know it as a fact.
God told me, in a revelation.
Wrote it on a piece of cloud and sent it with an angel.
I heard it on the PBS news that it was mentioned. You can check it out as easily as I can.
-
When you decide to present that claim backed by some actual supportable facts vs your standard error-riddled say so, we can then transition to some substantive dialog. Ball in your court
-
Why is a game going on?
The facts are like cards being held close to the vest.
-
There is no ball
There is no court.
You can check it out, or not, suit yourself.
-
It is said that the cop did not know about this alleged cigar theft.
Does this make the film of Michael Brown stealing a box of cigars and roughing up a clerk totally moot?
Or does it impeach his character and demonstrate the mood he was in that day?
-
There is no ball
There is no court.
You can check it out, or not, suit yourself.
Or you can back up your claim with some fact...ANY fact, since I have no need to try and back up your opinion of events. Until then, I'll just consider you in error, yet again. Your choice, your bed
-
You can continue standing around like the ignorant jerk you are.
It is par for the course.
-
wash....rinse....repeat (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=18246.msg158205#msg158205). Your reinforcing my point and inability to back up yet another claim of yours is greatly appreciated
-
The detail that the cop was unaware of the alleged cigar theft was in the morning paper. It seems to be available everywhere.
I see no obligation to spoon feed you. You'd just spit it up anyway.
-
The detail that the cop was unaware of the alleged cigar theft was in the morning paper. It seems to be available everywhere.
Then LINK it, from a specific news source, if its "all over the place", like everyone else does here, when they're supporting claims they make. I have no obligation to back up your opinion of events, that you'd ignore anyways
-
Here's how a link works, Professor. A person makes a claim, (for instance, it appears the DOJ under Holder didn't want the video of the robbery to be shown, I guess for fear it may degrade from the narrative that these fellas were targeted to be harrassed, simply based on their skin color. Or that it would lessen the victimization of Brown as some nice young black man, just minding his own business). And then that person provides a link to support that claim (http://www.businessinsider.com/feds-objected-to-the-release-of-alleged-michael-brown-robbery-tape-2014-8). Otherwise is just some opinion, based on nothing but the say-so of the person making the claim
The link can be when the claim is made, or if asked to provide the source where you're forming your opinion, after the original claim is made. If you're not sure how to provide a link, anyone of us can take you thru it, fairly easily. It's no biggie, as I'm not very sharp around computers myself
-
I don't play by your stupid rules, sirs. If you doubt what I say, look it up.
Or don't/
Like I care.
-
They're not rules, much less my rules, merely suggestion. It's simpy if you want your word to include some credibility to any claim/accusation you happen to be making, this is what the rest of us do. By all means, don't...which ironically just keeps reinforcing my point 8)
But you're right about one thing, you definately don't care that your word means squat.
-
Your word does not mean diddly to me.
You just want to have some hissyfit. Time after time, showing you where you were wrong has served no purpose.
I am not playing your game by your rules.
I am not playing your game at all.
-
Must have missed the part where I clearly said there are no rules, much less mine. That knee jerk deflection effort of yours is getting to the point of pathological
So, as I clearly said as well, by all means, don't (back up your own asanine claims. Keep them just as error-prone as ususally are. No skin of my debate back) Thanks for the continued validation of my point, in doing so, btw 8)
-
Looks like Michael THUG Brown after he robbed the store
was also high on drugs and shot from the front by the police officer.
Unlike what we were told by the race-baiters....
that the poor innocent boy was running away and shot in the back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/county-investigation-michael-brown-was-shot-from-the-front-had-marijuana-in-his-system/
-
DEATH TO ALL THUGS!
-
DEATH TO ALL THUGS!
FACTS TO ALL RACE-BAITERS!
AND WATCH THEM GO CRAZY!
-
Lol
-
maybe because of my san francisco background but does this drug have a history of such behaviour? i know many officer who off the record said out of the all the drugs use they encounter pot has the least instance of violence if any at all
-
BREAKING REPORT:
Officer Darren Wilson Suffered
"Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket"
During Mike Brown Attack
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/
-
gonna sound racist but one of the issue brought up is black youth tend to be thought of as problem before as a person. but maybe until thier own folks don`t think the same maybe this problem will subside. Al Sharpton Admitted once he get nervous if he`s see`s black teens on the streets.
lets just say I have African-American friend who are much more nervous than me around these kids. just saying their gonnas need to earn that kind of trust.
-
-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket
This could make it hard to aim.
-
I looked around , this report is lonesome , let us be suspicious of it for a little.
If it is true , some second sources will show up.
http://www.sharecare.com/health/eye-care/what-is-orbital-blowout-fracture
Each eyeball sits inside a boney cavity which protects the eye from injury. This cavity is called the orbit. The walls of the orbit are usually constructed of relatively thin bone which is capable of being fractured causing the wall to collapse ("blows out') into the underlying nasal sinus.This often happens after the eye and orbit are struck by a large solid object such as a fist or a baseball. When the wall of the orbit blows out contents of the orbit can enter the sinus sometimes causing double vision, restrictions in eyeball movement or rarely the whole eyeball disappears into the sinus. Often the patient will notice bleeding from their nose because the blood is coming from the fracured sinus wall. Sometimes infection can developed around the eyeball following a blowout fracture, contaminated from the bacteria in the sinus. Any suspected blowout fracture needs to examined and followed by your eye doctor. Occasionally, a blowout fracture needs surgery to repair the absent boney wall of the orbit but commonly it will repair itself.
-
The thing to do about this is wait for the hearings in which all the various tales are assembled.
If I were a betting man, I would say that Darren Wilson's career as a cop is over. Perhaps he might find a job in one of the lesser burgs of Wyoming.
I do not think that a cop in a car threatened by a person on foot to the degree that shooting is necessary. Moving the car would be preferable to killing a citizen.
-
Do you think a one eyed man can't be a Cop?
That is exactly the sort of thing that should be decided after hearings.
-
His being a one-eyed man has nothing to do with it.
He has been burned. He cannot be useful on Ferguson's police force ever again.
He has become the Peewee Herman of coptown.
-
Autopsy "expert" hired by Michael Brown family is a fraud
http://fox4kc.com/2014/08/19/shawn-parcells-credentials-role-in-michael-brown-autopsy-questioned-by-doctors/
-
Missouri cop was badly beaten
before shooting Michael Brown, says source
"Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun..."
"According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said..
"They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that's when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face".
The source claims that there is "solid proof" that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman's firearm, resulting in the gun going off although it still remains unclear at this stage who pulled the trigger. Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, "What, you're going to shoot me?"
At that point, the source told FoxNews.com, the 6 foot, 4 inch, 292-pound Brown charged Wilson, prompting the officer to fire at least six shots at him, including the fatal bullet that penetrated the top of Brown's skull, according to an independent autopsy conducted at the request of Brown's family.
Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket in the fracas, and was left dazed by the initial confrontation, the source said. He is now "traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and terrified" that a grand jury, which began hearing evidence on Wednesday, will "make some kind of example out of him," the source said."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
-
Pretty stark contrast of what Brown's friend is on record as claiming what happened. IIRC, the friend, who had just helped Brown rob a local mom & pop kinda store, swears that they were just minding their own business, and this cop just started shooting....for no apparent reason outside that they were apparently black. So says this "credible" eye witness
Sarcasm aside, so many law enforcement vehicles now have dash cams and many officers are wired with a mic. I think I read none of that had been implimented by the Fergeson Police Dept before this event. That would have shed some serious light on what really happened
-
I most likely totally wrong but I`m not a fan of wiring up a police officer as a total recording unit. it`ll encourage a police officer to go the letter of the law in his duties meaning less proactive action and more reactive action. ex. an officer may not act on a hunch anymore and only act when it`s much more obvious.
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-cop-video-camera-0820-bd-20140819-story.html
Looks like the next big thing.
Could be cheaper.
-
There needs to be a hearing and a comparison of what all witnesses says about what actually happened.
The police run in a lot more pot smokers, because traces of pot linger in the body for a month or more, and the tests for other drugs do not detect use for nearly so long a time span. Pot makes people mellow, the opposite of violent.
-
How important is letting the public know the facts?
How important is releasing facts sooner rather than later?
-
The police delayed too long in releasing the facts that it had, and the way it eventually did release them seems to have caused more rioting.
The important thing is that there be an impartial jury that has all the facts.
Some police have excellent hunches. Others have bad hunches. Policing is not the same in reality as it is in novels and on TV shows.
-
So basically, dammed if they do and damned if they don't. Is that how it works? They needed to release that Brown was a thug & a thief, ASAP, and that would have lessened the rioting? really?
-
They should have released the name of the officer immediately.
They could have released the other stuff as facts became known.
Doing it all at once made them look deceitful and self-serving.
-
They should have released the name of the officer immediately.
So they also should have released the video of Brown robbing the store immediately as well, right??
-
It is unclear that the person in the store video was Brown. The face was unrecognizable.
They could have released it if they said it was an ALLEGED film of Brown.
-
It is VERY clear that the person in the video is Brown. Same build, same shirt, same hat, same FRIEND.
So, the video of Brown robbing this store, just prior to the confrontation, should have been released immediately, correct? Or is it only information putting the officer at risk. That's perfectly acceptable??
-
Putting the officer at risk, get serious. Where has this lame excuse ever been used?
The intent was not to tell anyone anything i hopes that the whole thing would just go away.
What needs to happen is a series of depositions by everyone who saw anything. It is irrelevant to the final outcome when each tidbit of news was announced until all of it is known. Then a chronology might or might not point to a cover up or some other sort of inappropriate behavior.
Like the Zimmerman case, this will fill the media full of nonsense and counternonsense for far longer than is necessary or useful, with the usual blather about "playing the race card", as though it is not mostly about race.
-
We still do not know how badly the officer was hurt.
If his hurt is quite severe , the shooting might seem more reasonable.
A face so broken that death seems a whisper away would fully justify deadly force to stop an ongoing beating.
If this turns out to be an angry cop with a fat lip shooting a retreating guy , that is quite different.
So why are we waiting for this sort of information?
Maybe there is a reason to be coy , but it better be good, they must tell us eventually.
The jury pool is already contaminated all the way to Singapore.
-
Putting the officer at risk, get serious.
I am......did you read where a name of an officer was released, but it was't this officer, and immediately that officer began getting death threats. So what the frell is accomplished in getting this officer's name out so fast as possible??
The intent was not to tell anyone anything i hopes that the whole thing would just go away.
SERIOUSLY?? You really think this was going to "go away" if the officer's name wasn't released, ASAP? That's some serious stuff you must be smoking. So, how has that worked out?? :o
What needs to be done is to allow an investigation be completed minus the hyperbole & predisposed judgement that this officer simply shot Brown because he was Black and menacing
-
The idea that a jury should be composed of people totally ignorant of everything is a faulty one. The original idea of having a "jury of peers" was so that every person on the jury could relate, as a member of the community. This crap about how a jury should be selected among deaf mute hermits is the idea of lawyers. Lawyers are enemies of fairness in trials as much as they are allies. They are not interested in the truth: they are interested in THEIR truth, and try to suppress that of the other side. They attempt to get the most ignorant fools on a jury that they can, so they can propagandize them. It is a faulty system and it does not serve this country well at all. A three judge panel of impartial trained jurists as used in the Netherlands, is far better.
There may not even be a trial, though I think it is more likely that there will be one. It has become a "celebrity trial", and people will run about saying that "America is on trial" or worse that "Black America is on trial" and White America is on trial".
-
I did not think it would "go away" if the officer's name was not revealed. I said that this seems to have been the true motive of the cops for not releasing it. There are lots of ways to prevent the cop from being lynched and such. I think that there was a disagreement between the police chief and the mayor and the result was inaction. Perhaps they thought it would all blow over. Things like this have blown over in the past. You have not heard of them because they have blown over.
-
Again, who in their right mind would have believed this would "go away" if the officer's name wasn't released ASAP?? This was going to be investigated thoroughly without all the racial tension. The added tension fueled by folks like JJ & Sharpton, declaring how they already know that Brown was murdered in cold blood, literally puts a bounty on this officer's head.
Now again, what the frell does it accomplish to get this officer's name out lickety split?? This event wasn't going anywhere, nor blowever The case wasn't going to just sit on some 74year old investigator's desk.
-
How important is letting the public know the facts?
How important is releasing facts sooner rather than later?
I must say I can not understand the logic of withholding
that the officer had serious injuries from the incident.
If the officer was badly injured and treated at a hospital
why was that information not released with photos asap?
In my mind that would have really helped better frame
what happened and lessened the riots/protests.
-
I have heard many tales of police abuse, and the officer's name was always mentioned. We do not know there were death threats. We know that the police SAY there were death threats. The cop either had a fracture or he did not have a fracture: both tales are circulating.
Why did they not release photos? Perhaps there were no injuries to photograph. Or perhape they did not want to show the world what the cop looked like, again, to protect him.
The fact is that until ALL the information is collected, making any judgements is premature, and useless, since there will be no penalties or rewards for the public's comments.
-
There is not now, nor will there ever be, a case in which a White cop shoots and kills a Black kid in which race is never mentioned. And all the usual dorks: Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter on one side and Sharpton and Jackson on the other will always make comments and get them into the story, because that is the custom, like putting cheese on cheeseburgers. It is NOT "playing the race card" it is an integral part of the story and the way things are done. Just like having three wise met rather than seventeen. It is the tradition.
-
The fact is that until ALL the information is collected, making any judgements is premature, and useless, since there will be no penalties or rewards for the public's comments.
Which begs the question, why oh why perpetually pre-judge the officer as having must have done something recklessly racist, if not criminal?? Is that not precisely acting premature??
-
There is not now, nor will there ever be, a case in which a White cop shoots and kills a Black kid in which race is never mentioned. And all the usual dorks: Sharpton and Jackson on the other will always make comments and get them into the story, because that is the custom, like putting cheese on cheeseburgers. It is NOT "playing the race card" it is an integral part of the story and the way things are done. Just like having three wise met rather than seventeen. It is the tradition.
Paying Al Sharpton to Deliver Garbage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aoR_FTUrCA)
-
I am not pre judging or judging anything, except in your mind.
-
O'Reilly accuses Sharpton of interpreting the "facts" and then does the same damned thing himself.
No one condoned looting here or anywhere.
The important "fact" to O'Reilly is that looters that were arrested were not from Ferguson.
Looting is a crime even if you are from Ferguson.
O'Reilly is doing the same crap that he accuses Sharpton of doing.
The fact is what happen and that alone. any statement about what it means is interpretation.
It is a good thing that "99.9%" of people arrested were not shot and killed by the cops.
That does not mean that shooting Michael Brown was okay.
One expects the same crap from O'Reilly that one expects from Sharpton. Neither one is helping the situation. Both are simply banging on their own drums to keep their jobs as drummers. We should examine the records to make sure they are each getting the same pay for the same job.
-
Wow...talk about never reading what they write and the need to push some agenda. You've been tripping all over yourself in prejudging & proclaiming how this cop is guilty of something nefarious. Racism at least, murder at most.
And what the hell is O'Reily's supposed agenda that mirrors Sharpton?? :o He made it clear that if a court finds the officer guilty, he should go to prison. That despite that 99.9% of those arrested weren't shot, that what happened to Brown was anything but ok.
What is O'Reily doing to NOT help the situation?? Highlighting how what Sharpton is doing that's not helping the situation? Seriously?? Just let Sharpton bang his prejudged drums, stoke all sorts of racial divisiveness, and NBC pay's him for it?? Wow
-
Fox gets paid, NBC gets paid, O'Reilly gets paid, Sharpton gets paid. Not by politicians, but by people who buy the crap advertised on all those shows, none of which I tend to watch.
All I have said is that the police should not shoot and kill unarmed people. Tasing is bad enough.
I also said that that cop will no longer be policing anywhere near Ferguson, because he has been burned.
This is not because I favor it, it is simply what happens. Zimmerman is no longer playing neighborhood patrol, either.
O'Reilly acts like the media coverage was deliberately intended to piss him off, and behind his back, too, since he was out of town or off duty or something.
He is no better than Sharpton, just not quite as original.
Sharpton and O'Reily are playing an extended gamer of "Yo' Momma is soooo ugly..."
It is a waste of innocent electrons.
-
Boy, as I said...that's some rank amount of an agenda you're pushing. But at least we can agree on something....how much of an idiot & ass Sharpton is being
-
O'Reilly is nothing but an Irish Sharpton.
I can't recall ever hearing him say anything even remotely profound.
-
So in other words, yet again, no examples, nothign to back up your claim, in this case no specific instances to demonstrate the apparent mirror images of the men, or how exactly O'Reily is stoking racial hatred like Sharpton...., just your say so ::)
-
Nothing but O'Reilly's stupid rant, which is not any different than Sharpton's, just directed at a different audience.
Why would anyone need any more than that?
-
http://news.msn.com/us/st-louis-police-release-video-of-shooting
The police were lucky, in this case, that this video was available and is pretty clear.
Cameras are already pretty common, you never know when one is pointed at you.
I believe they are going to become ubiquitous, then you will get accustomed to being on camera more often than not.
-
Nothing but O'Reilly's stupid rant, which is not any different than Sharpton's, just directed at a different audience.
Why would anyone need any more than that?
Because that means nothing. That's just your say co compared to if a person actually watched his "rant". If you hadm you would clearly notice how it was the polar opposite of the garbage Sharpton peddles. O'Reily hasn't made any judgements. O'Reily wants all the appropriate agencies to investigate, including Holder and the Justice Dept. O'Reily is on record that if a jury were to find him guilty, he should go to prison. O'Reily supported Obama's call for calm. If your definition of a "different audience" is one that is rational, logical, and clear headed, then yea, I guess you're right. But minus any actual examples in the claim that O'Reily is nothing more than an Irish version of Sharpton, just because you say so, means nothing
That's why ANYONE would need more than that
-
All I have said is that the police should not shoot and kill unarmed people.
Yes that is a nice text book "plan".
But don't ya think circumstances in the jungle sometimes dictate other options?
If you are a policeman and you exit your vehicle at a volatile scene
and an "unarmed" individual bull-rushes you and is beating your head
into the concrete and a struggle for the officers gun ensues....
how can you state lethal force should not be used?
-
All I have said is that the police should not shoot and kill unarmed people.
Yes , there is a flaw in this premise.
The assumption that "unarmed" is the same thing as "peaceful" or "harmless".
This just isn't a dependable thing to assume.
Also a policeman cannot assume that a person is unarmed unless they are naked and their hands are in plain sight.
-
So it is okay to shoot an unarmed person unless they are naked and have their hands in plain sight?
If a cop should shoot YOU because you were wearing clothes and your hands could not be seen, would that be okay?
-
So it is okay to shoot an unarmed person unless they are naked and have their hands in plain sight?
...or if they're charging you, and you are in fear for your life, having just been beaten by them and they're nearly twice your weight. Notice, color of skin has nothing to do with that
If a cop should shoot YOU because you were wearing clothes and your hands could not be seen, would that be okay?
That's not a valid reason to shoot anyone. There has to be a perceived threat.
-
So you can shoot to kill anyone you are afraid of, even if they are entirely unarmed, and you are sitting in a car, which you could shut yourself up in and drive away.
Is that it?
-
Speaking as a civilian, IF they are coming at you, and you have a definite fear your life is in danger...ABSOLUTELY. You have no blooming idea of how "unarmed" they are. They could have a switchblade, a razor blade, hell they could have a rock, but if they're coming at you, you absolutely can defend yourself with lethal force if necessary.
Speaking for the Police, I wasn't there, so I have no idea what the officer was facing, but if these eye-witness accounts being reported that are being corroborated by other reports, that of Brown charging the officer, after the initial assault Brown had on the officer, he had every legal right to defend himself, using his firearm
-
So it is okay to shoot an unarmed person unless they are naked and have their hands in plain sight?
If a cop should shoot YOU because you were wearing clothes and your hands could not be seen, would that be okay?
That could have happened to me.
This was about a decade ago, I was walking along the street I lived on, I was drawing near a parked patrol car.
A county Deputy got out and inquired about the gun in my holster, what brand is it?
I moved gently to keep my hands in sight and away from the holster and told him that what I had in the holster was a cell phone, I was outwardly calm but inwardly I felt a lot of tension coming on suddenly.
So the gun in my holster was a Motorola , and the deputy really said he thought he saw a Glock, if someone had rung me just as he recognized the Glock he would also have seen a fast draw.
Which would have put my survival in jeopardy , but would have made this story even more funny.
-
The cop was sitting in his patrol car. He closes and locks the door, starts the engine, and suddenly he is no longer being threatened, he has become a threat.
If some grand jury decides that the cop acted entirely within the law, he is going to piss off thousands of people.
The Rodney King case was an example of what could happen if they just let this shooting pass.
-
So .... facts don't matter. You weren't there, but opposed to what you claimed, the officer has been prejudged by you, Sharpton, and the rest of the lynch mob. The only thing missing is you all need to be wearing black sheets
-
If some grand jury decides that the cop acted entirely within the law,.....
What if that is the only thing that a jury can find?
Are we really going to tell out policemen not to ever confront anyone?
This policeman might have thought he was just correcting a jaywalker, should he not have?
-
So you can shoot to kill anyone you are afraid of, even if they are entirely unarmed, and you are sitting in a car, which you could shut yourself up in and drive away.
Is that it?
I think this is the right question.
The answer is no.
We cannot allow our police to roll up their windows and drive away from troubles, it is in their job description to drive to where the trouble is and get out of the car there.
If deadly force is used , the question becomes , was it done as a reasonable person would have done and was the law broken.
If the situation was such that a reasonable person would use deadly force and the law allows everything that was done , there is nothing to accuse.
But if we are going to tell our police to drive away from all law breaking , why not fire them all and save the money? That is not a choice available to them.
-
I hardly think that it benefits the community for some cop to shoot an unarmed man which then provokes a riot that destroys millions of dollars of property.
The defense of the community and its tranquility are far more important than the macho of some damned cop, who can call for backup and return.
Here in Miami I have seen seven cop cars all surrounding one lone driver. I have no idea what the crime was, but no one was killed.
-
We cannot allow our police to roll up their windows and drive away from troubles,
Ha Ha....what a joke that would be!
Of course then the police-haters would sue the Police claiming...
"OMG the police drove away & my poor innocent son got killed".
You can't satisfy these nutcase 2nd guessing people....
You are damned if you do....and damned if you don't
They want to sit back in their recliners from an unfolding unpredictable reality
and pretend in 20/20 hind-site there is a way to predict the unpredictable
and mandate one size fits all text-book solutions....
-
It would be a good policy for police everywhere to adopt the clever tactic of not shooting unarmed citizens whenever it is possible to avoid such.
-
And there in lies the issue....when its possible. YOU WEREN'T THERE. It's ENTIRELY possible that this shooting was absolutely necessary. Did the officer know that when Brown was charging him, that he was indeed "unarmed"? You know that for a fact?? With a broken eye orbit, caused by Brown, if Brown's arms come forward in any way, as he's charging, you have maybe a second to react. And yes, you keep shooting until the threat has been put down. The Police aren't what you see on shows like Silverado or Justified. They can't just "shoot them in the leg", or shoot a weapon out of their hand, when they're being attacked. You aim center mass, to lessen any stray bullets, and keep shooting until there's no longer a threat on your life
The riots are caused by the idiots like JJ & Sharpton, using their media bullhorn to stoke racial anger, proclaiming how this cop is obviously guilty and just...not in general, but Justice for Brown alone is achieved. The thing is, you don't care, you've prejudged him as well, and damn any evidence that says otherwise. The facts don't matter outside of Brown was shot, he was unarmed, he was black, and it was a white cop....case closed, the cop is guilty of murder, if not worse.
-
Yeah, sure, Sharpton caused riots.
Only in your teensy little mind.
Riots are caused by opportunists who use the breakdown of law and order to steal TVs, hair extensions, money., booze and of course the ever popular money.
All that cop needed to do was just back off down the street and call for backup.
Of course, the desire to use a gun is the sort of thing that makes you cream your jeans, so that has to be the proper thing to do. Let 'em loot the WalMart, Booze City and the Kwik-E-Mart, it's time to show what guns can do. Bang! Bang! Take that! You will never enjoy another stolen Swisher Sweet again!
-
Yeah, sure, Sharpton caused riots.
ABSOFRELINLOUTELY. Have you ever heard this supposed spokesperson for the Afican American community, say anything along the lines of "Ok, stop it...no more rioting" No, quite the contrary, he's using his bull horn, stoking up anger, for an officer he's already pre-judged as committing murder. Of course that's going to cause riots
All that cop needed to do was just back off down the street and call for backup.
YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE SITUATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES WERE, OR WHAT THIS OFFICER COULD OR COULDN'T DO
As far as the rest of your ignorant anti-gun rant, I'll just remind you to take your meds
-
You were not there, either.
Too bad, I am sure you and your guns would have made all the difference.
-
You were not there, either.
Which I have made painfully clear, and have not prejudged anyone
Too bad, I am sure you and your guns would have made all the difference.
Like I said, don't forget the meds
-
The cop was sitting in his patrol car. He closes and locks the door, starts the engine, and suddenly he is no longer being threatened, he has become a threat.
If some grand jury decides that the cop acted entirely within the law, he is going to piss off thousands of people.
The Rodney King case was an example of what could happen if they just let this shooting pass.
I think your position is poorly thought out, there is much we have not been told at this point.
How badly hurt is this policeman? If he had been injured to death , this might not have made national news and there might never have been riots, but I do not think we can require that policemen allow themselves to be beaten to death rather than draw their weapons and risk riot.
My feelings are hurt with the witness who at this point seems to have exaggerated and minimized what he saw selectively.
I also have hurt feelings with the Ferguson officials who are not telling us how much the policeman was injured, this is important and if there is a reason to keep it secret it needs to be a very good reason indeed.
-
They have fudged some of the facts about his injuries.
There needs to be a complete investigation.
-
They have fudged some of the facts about his injuries.
And you know this....how? What fudged facts would those be? We know that Brown's buddy, and star "witness" has fudged alot of facts. Are you ever planning to critique his misguided testimonies, which have in-turn, helped create an atmosphere for more rioting, rather than less??
There needs to be a complete investigation.
Coming from those defending the scandals plaguing Obama is hilarious, though also begs the question, how would it not be a complete investigation??
-
There will be enough investigations to suit everyone.
There was a report that the cop's eye socket was fractured. And another report that says it was not. Both reports cannot be true.
At present it seems that neither Brown nor Wilson was acting in a rational manner, and both of them screwed up. But we shall see more details than we ever wanted to see, since this has ballooned into a Nation Event.
The participants in Nevada were far more quaint and picturesque.
It is rather like the network cancelling one when it was just beginning to get interesting, and them replaced it with another with less interesting characters and a much more boring plot. There are no cattle to shoot in Ferguson, no cowboy clothes, no stomp boots and snap shirts and ten gallon hats.
I liked Gunsmoke a lot better than Barney Miller.
-
There will be enough investigations to suit everyone.
And yet folks are running all over the place proclaiming how a thorough investigations needs to occur...as if it isn't or won't be
There was a report that the cop's eye socket was fractured. And another report that says it was not. Both reports cannot be true.
How is that "fudged"? Sounds like differing reports...happens all the time when reporters are trying to get information, and report things that haven't been corroborated yet. A far cry from anyone fudging facts. Any other examples of actual facts being fudged??
-
Someone reported a fracture with no evidence of a fracture. Call it anything you like. I choose the term "fudged".
-
Support Officer Wilson
https://www.gofundme.com/OfficerWilsonFundraiser
(https://2dbdd5116ffa30a49aa8-c03f075f8191fb4e60e74b907071aee8.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/1993633_1408737428.7103.jpg)
-
He'll probably need it.
He is burned. His days on any nearby police force are over.
-
He'll probably need it.
He is burned. His days on any nearby police force are over.
So as far as you are concerned he is convicted?
Why would any self respecting person become a policeman in a city that convicts them early with a presumption of guilt?
-
Someone reported a fracture with no evidence of a fracture. Call it anything you like. I choose the term "fudged".
Someone is....who? It's the "who" who apparently didn't do diligent reporting, IF that was the case.....if being the operable word. But by all means, infer something not actually factual
-
I did not say he was convicted. I said he was burned. If the majority of the people of Ferguson make it clear that any candidate who hires this guy as a cop will never win the election, he is simply out of a job. If Miami hired him, the mayor would catch the flak and we would have a new mayor and Wilson would be out of a job.
There are more people looking for cop jobs than there are cop jobs.
He might find work in Alaska or Wyoming. It is not a question of guilt of innocence.
Do you want a mayor that hires cops that might shoot your kid or would you prefer a mayor who does not hire such a cop?
-
I heard this morning that the turnout in Ferguson's last civic election had a 12% turnout.
Before this shooting , there must have been a lot of satisfaction, or apathy.
-
Ferguson gets 25% of its revenue from traffic tickets. 95% of all Ferguson traffic tickets are issued to Black people. I do not dislike the police as a rule, but there is nothing more infuriating that the SOB who gives you a ticket for making a turn from the wrong lane when there is no traffic and your turn has posed no danger, and after issuing you a ticket that will cost you the price of this month's groceries tells you "Have a nice day!"
Who wants to be told to have a nice day by the jerk who just ruined your day?
I have this feeling that the turnout in Ferguson's next city elections will be much higher.
Apathy is common. When the city elections are held when there are not any other candidates on the ballot, it tends to be pathetic.
I always vote. Always. I always told my students to register and vote. Contrary to what the idiot rightwingers claim, college teachers mostly talk about th subject, in my case this was Spanish pronunciation, grammar and syntax, which is not political. But I did tell them to register and vote. It probably did little good.
-
Perhaps it would be useful to examine the tragedy with the facts on the table rather than through the lenses of hypersensitized emotions stimulated by those attempting to exploit the situation.... Dr. Ben Carson
-
because I live in the bay area I guess I would be the only one to think of this. maybe the whole police dept should be investigated . I say this because awhile back a bart officer accidentally shoot a person and it was found the whole bart police has some serious problems to begin with. it inspired the movie fruitville station.
-
I agree that an extensive inquiry is needed.
The BART incident at Fruitville station is more typical of police behavior than most people think.