Ferguson Riots

[caulfield12]

Are these the same witnesses that said he was shot in the back as he was running away? Which doesn't seem likely now?

 

 

 

He attacked a cop. He caused facial fractures. He's not some random victim of a cold-blooded killer cop. I don't care if he ran away, he's not the "victim" that he's being portrayed as.

 

 

Link? Do we know that as a FACT now? Have the police reported this in one of their briefings or it's just a rumor flying around the internet now?

[Jenksismyhero]

These are the same witnesses who said the officer fired at Brown as he was running away. They initially believed he had been hit in the back. Being wrong about whether or not he was actually hit from behind doesn't really call the whole situation into question.

 

 

That's pretty messed up. You should absolutely care if he ran away and if the officer fired at him while he was fleeing or if he put his hands up. Attacking a cop isn't carte blanche for the cop to summarily execute you for assault.

 

But we know he wasn't "fleeing" when he was shot, at least based on internet-opinionreview of the forensics. He's at least facing the cop. And again, I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe a 28 year old cop who appears to have been good at his job was a cold-blooded murderer willing to shoot and kill a person from 35 feet away. A person who was allegedly giving himself up. None of that makes any sense given Brown's earlier actions.

 

And while you don't get a free pass to kill someone in that situation, i'm also not very sympathetic to the "victim." When you attack someone with a gun, one common sense outcome is that you'll be killed in defense.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, to that point I agree. That's along the lines of Stephen A. Smith telling women to stop provoking men into hitting them. But you and I both know there are people who engage cops in a really stupid way and all it does is cause more problems than is necessary. Be polite, follow instructions, and generally it's not going to be an issue. Be combative, defensive, stand your ground and ignore instructions, and you are going to force their hand. And sometimes a response is going to be justified depending on what you're doing.

 

But look at the examples he gave. They were simple verbal disagreements that he justified using physical responses ranging from pepper spray to shooting you over. That is a f***ed up, authoritarian point of view. No person who is actually in a position of authority, especially not one that allows you to deploy force against civilians, should have that point of view. If you can't handle some mean words, turn in your badge ASAP.

 

Lol, get back to me when you have a toddler that doesn't listen to anything you say (and i'm sure older parents will say a teenager).

 

We're talking about how a cop thinks everyone, children and adults, should act. If your response to someone disagreeing with you strongly is to lose control and lash out, you shouldn't be a cop.

 

 

[RockRaines]

Based on the videos, and what the Al Jazeera reporters said.

 

 

 

...they were filming a news segment. The reporter was in front of the camera with the 2 big lights on him.

Thats simply not enough for me.

[RockRaines]

And now the media is gaining attention by showing the other side

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

 

[StrangeSox]

But we know he wasn't "fleeing" when he was shot, at least based on internet-opinionreview of the forensics. He's at least facing the cop. And again, I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe a 28 year old cop who appears to have been good at his job was a cold-blooded murderer willing to shoot and kill a person from 35 feet away. A person who was allegedly giving himself up. None of that makes any sense given Brown's earlier actions.

 

Tunnel vision, adrenaline, poor decision making. Who knows if Wilson has ever had to fire his service weapon before? He could have panicked.

 

On the other hand, if you take Wilson's side of the story, Brown's actions don't make much sense. Why would he stop, taunt, and then charge someone who had already fired at him once (from inside the car, whether it was intentional or accidental)?

 

And while you don't get a free pass to kill someone in that situation, i'm also not very sympathetic to the "victim." When you attack someone with a gun, one common sense outcome is that you'll be killed in defense.

 

Why are you putting victim in scare quotes? If we give the most charitable interpretation to Brown's side, he was 100% a victim. And no, the outcome when you assault someone with a gun, especially a police officer, shouldn't be instant death. That's not the legal standard, and it shouldn't be the moral one either.

[StrangeSox]

Thats simply not enough for me.

you've been provided with multiple sources

[RockRaines]

you've been provided with multiple sources

Not really.

[Jenksismyhero]

Link? Do we know that as a FACT now? Have the police reported this in one of their briefings or it's just a rumor flying around the internet now?

 

 

Police said he suffered injuries to the face. Several blogs/newsites are running that it's an orbital fracture, but no major news source has backed it up yet.

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/1421156/ferguson-...-michael-brown/

[illinilaw08]

But we know he wasn't "fleeing" when he was shot, at least based on internet-opinionreview of the forensics. He's at least facing the cop. And again, I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe a 28 year old cop who appears to have been good at his job was a cold-blooded murderer willing to shoot and kill a person from 35 feet away. A person who was allegedly giving himself up. None of that makes any sense given Brown's earlier actions.

 

And while you don't get a free pass to kill someone in that situation, i'm also not very sympathetic to the "victim." When you attack someone with a gun, one common sense outcome is that you'll be killed in defense.

 

He might very well have been fleeing when he was shot AT. It's relevant if the first shot that was fired is while he's fleeing, but he isn't hit until he has turned around...

 

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

She said she missed 30 seconds of it and only came back to see him laying in the street. It was in her interview. She essentially saw nothing.

 

That's not what she says at all in this CNN interview. She says she saw the entire thing, then went back to get her phone, which took about 30 seconds. The 30 seconds is from the end of the shooting to the start of her video.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSy69cbDXsk

 

Was there some other interview?

[caulfield12]

So what did those police do so differently? Why didnt the community decide that the cops were wrong and they needed to burn down local businesses?

 

 

In the end, part of the reason things didn't blow up THAT night was because it was New Year's Eve and 2:15 a.m. in the morning (everyone was tired and going home) and because of the fact that the victim was pretty much isolated away from public viewing...at least from inside the subway cars from which they'd been taken for questioning and lined up inside the station.

 

In this case, social media really didn't have a chance to disseminate the images right away...it wasn't until the following days the story picked up steam. In the St. Louis case, the first mistake (in my opinion) was leaving the body out on the street in plain view (without even being covered with a sheet for hours and hours. In Oscar Grant's case, he didn't die right away...he went into surgery in a local hospital and the story wasn't pieced together by the media until later.

 

The Fruitvale Station situation wasn't on CNN and the lead story on the nightly news for 7-10 days...that's for sure. I even have my g/f in China asking me what is going on in the United States with this situation, and why can't the police control it?

 

It's also clear the jury didn't completely believe the officer's account he thought he was pulling out a taser when the reality was he was drawing his service revolver.

 

 

 

 

BART Police officers detained Oscar Grant and several other passengers on the platform at the Fruitvale BART Station. Officer Johannes Mehserle and another officer were restraining Grant, who was lying face down and allegedly resisting arrest.[4][5][6] Officer Mehserle stood and, according to his attorney, said: "Get back, I'm gonna Tase him."[7] Then Mehserle drew his gun and shot Grant once in the back. During his court testimony, Mehserle said that Grant then exclaimed, "You shot me!"[3][4][8] Grant was unarmed; he was pronounced dead the next morning at Highland Hospital in Oakland.[8]

 

The events were captured on multiple digital video and cell phone cameras. The footage was disseminated to media outlets and to various websites, where it was watched millions of times.[9] The following days saw both peaceful and violent protests.[10]

 

The shooting has been variously labeled an involuntary manslaughter and a summary execution.[11] On January 30, 2010, Alameda County prosecutors charged Mehserle with murder for the shooting. He resigned his position and pleaded not guilty. The trial began on June 10, 2010. Michael Rains, Mehserle's criminal defense attorney, argued that Mehserle mistakenly shot Grant with his pistol, intending to use his Taser when he saw Grant reaching for his waistband.[4][5] Pretrial filings argue that his client did not commit first-degree murder and asked a Los Angeles judge to instruct the jury to limit its deliberations to either second-degree murder or acquittal.

 

On July 8, 2010, the jury returned its verdict: Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and not guilty of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.[12] Initial protests against the ruling were peacefully organized; looting, arson, destruction of property, and small riots broke out after dark. Nearly 80 people were eventually arrested.[13][14]

 

www.wikipedia.com

Edited August 19, 2014 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Not really.

yeah, you have, and google is your friend. you've been provided with multiple other incidents as well.

[DrunkBomber]

there was no rioting or looting going on at the time of many of the incidents of overreaction.

How do you know that? Is it based just off of what the reporters said? How do we know there wasnt a mob heading in the direction of where the Al Jazeera had set up and the police told them to move and they refused? It simply doesnt make sense that the there would be that many police in that area and a news crew setting up for a story if there was nothing going on there. Were likely to never know exactly what went on before that video was recorded but when you keep claiming that the news crews got no warning and were just tear gassed for no reason and saying that there was nothing going on in that area you really have no idea what youre talking about.

[Jenksismyhero]

Tunnel vision, adrenaline, poor decision making. Who knows if Wilson has ever had to fire his service weapon before? He could have panicked.

 

On the other hand, if you take Wilson's side of the story, Brown's actions don't make much sense. Why would he stop, taunt, and then charge someone who had already fired at him once (from inside the car, whether it was intentional or accidental)?

 

 

 

Why are you putting victim in scare quotes? If we give the most charitable interpretation to Brown's side, he was 100% a victim. And no, the outcome when you assault someone with a gun, especially a police officer, shouldn't be instant death. That's not the legal standard, and it shouldn't be the moral one either.

 

Here's a decent breakdown of why the three witnesses' versions are a little questionable:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/20.../hands-up-story

 

And yes, it might make sense if he's a hot-headed moron, which he appears to be. He could have known the gun going off was accidental. And Brown also knew that instead of firing after him immediately when he ran away, Wilson was yelling at him to freeze.

 

When you endanger the life of anyone, that person has the right to defend themselves. If you're that stupid that you want to assault someone with a gun, you need to be prepared to die as a result of a defending act. Yes, if Brown really ran away and was 35 feet away and was shot from that distance, then ok, that's not right and even though Brown is a moron, he's clearly outside of that zone of danger. But if he's facing Wilson and coming towards him for a second time, he's not a "victim" in any sense of the word. He got what was coming to him.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[caulfield12]

He might very well have been fleeing when he was shot AT. It's relevant if the first shot that was fired is while he's fleeing, but he isn't hit until he has turned around...

 

 

That's why we need the ballistics report.

 

Supposedly, Brown was shot 6 times. The weapon went off at least once when they were struggling over it (according to most witness accounts). How many shots were taken...and what was Michael Brown's initial position when the first shot was fired? Did the officer fire at him while he was fleeing/with his back turned, which might have surprised Brown and caused him to turn around, knowing he wasn't going to outrun a much smaller officer with a gun?

 

It's not exactly a rational idea for someone to charge into a police officer's path of fire from 35 feet away unless something has precipitated the thought that this is the only course of action left remaining to survive...that running away wasn't an option.

Edited August 19, 2014 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

yeah, you have, and google is your friend. you've been provided with multiple other incidents as well.

Media reporting on why they did something wrong and were gassed is not a legit source.

[caulfield12]

Here's a decent breakdown of why the three witnesses' versions are a little questionable:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/20.../hands-up-story

 

And yes, it might make sense if he's a hot-headed moron, which he appears to be. He could have known the gun going off was accidental. And Brown also knew that instead of firing after him immediately when he ran away, Wilson was yelling at him to freeze.

 

When you endanger the life of anyone, that person has the right to defend themselves. If you're that stupid that you want to assault someone with a gun, you need to be prepared to die as a result of a defending act. Yes, if Brown really ran away and was 35 feet away and was shot from that distance, then ok, that's not right and even though Brown is a moron, he's clearly outside of that zone of danger. But if he's facing Wilson and coming towards him for a second time, he's not a "victim" in any sense of the word. He got what was coming to him.

 

It might as well be Matt Drudge or Fox News, lol. Breitbart.com and "Big Government" in the link of a story, c'mon, that's not going to be close to impartial, any more than CNBC anchors like Rachel Maddow or The Ed Show would be reliable sources for unbiased reporting.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Media reporting on why they did something wrong and were gassed is not a legit source.

 

 

Who would you actually trust and believe to accurately report ON THE MEDIA...?

 

Is such a thing possible in this day and age?

[Jenksismyhero]

He might very well have been fleeing when he was shot AT. It's relevant if the first shot that was fired is while he's fleeing, but he isn't hit until he has turned around...

 

But that's still not getting us anywhere. We still need to find out if Brown was running back towards Wilson.

[RockRaines]

Who would you actually trust and believe to accurately report ON THE MEDIA...?

 

Is such a thing possible in this day and age?

My own eyes watching live footage, and I've repeatedly seen police trying to ask media members to do something rational like move back 3 feet and they completely ignore it over and over. I saw a camera man basically walk into the path of tear gas last night when warned for around 10 min that it was going to come. I dont trust their words, but I trust their pictures .

[StrangeSox]

How do you know that? Is it based just off of what the reporters said? How do we know there wasnt a mob heading in the direction of where the Al Jazeera had set up and the police told them to move and they refused? It simply doesnt make sense that the there would be that many police in that area and a news crew setting up for a story if there was nothing going on there. Were likely to never know exactly what went on before that video was recorded but when you keep claiming that the news crews got no warning and were just tear gassed for no reason and saying that there was nothing going on in that area you really have no idea what youre talking about.

 

Welp I guess we should give the police who have demonstrated clear overreaction in multiple instances in this case complete deference despite multiple news crews reporting that nothing was going on in that area. Oh, and the police themselves not trying to justify it by saying that they were warned and that there was something going on in the area, but by saying "uh, we don't know what department fired the tear gas, wasn't us!"

[southsider2k5]

you've been provided with multiple sources

 

And therein lies the problem. Anyone can literally find a source that will back up any version of events that happened over the past week or so. There has been pretty much zero consistency in reporting. The only rule seems to have been that the earlier the report was made, the less accurate it was.

[StrangeSox]

Here's a decent breakdown of why the three witnesses' versions are a little questionable:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/20.../hands-up-story

 

 

 

breitbart is a giant pile of bulls***

[caulfield12]

But that's still not getting us anywhere. We still need to find out if Brown was running back towards Wilson.

 

 

If Brown was running/moving away and Wilson missed him or just clipped him in the arm after he shouted "Freeze!", then Brown subsequently turned around and charged back towards Wilson, that's a very different scenario.