Let's argue about Mike Brown!

[kilik64]

darkie had it coming

Wow, racist much?

Sheesh.

 

[dohdough]

...or, the cop pulled his gun and Brown went into defense mode and tried to grab the gun to keep from getting shot. If someone was close enough to me where I could grab their gun I'd do the same thing. As would you, cop or not.

None of this contradicts any of the evidence we already knew. In fact, that's exactly what his friend said happened right after the shooting: struggle at the car, shots fired, Brown ran away, cop fired at him, Brown turned around and put his hands up, cop gunned him down. The only thing that's changed is that now we know the shot from the truck hit Brown. And as for the weed in his system, stop using Reefer Madness as a frame of reference on what weed does to the human body, unless you think that THC turns young black men into mini Hulks.

But yes, let's continue with the "darkie had it coming" framing that the usual suspects in VS absolutely love to use.

Did someone say REEFER MADNESS????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0

If THC turns black men into mini Hulks, we better keep them away from Nyquil! They might start a race war in their Negro Rage(tm) and steal all the white womens!

 

[Fearia]

I don't know why race keeps getting brought into this.  Or why so much is read into the THC argument other than he's not the "pure, innocent kid" that the family / protesters keep making him out to be.

I also don't understand how some people in this thread are arguing the autopsy results.  Based off the bullet trajectories through his body, he did not have his arms up in a standard surrender position.  His blood being on the gun means he was close enough to the gun when it went off to be a credible threat to the officer.  Now, I've heard the argument that "Officer Wilson pulled Brown into his car".

Why in the world would he do that?!  He had no logical reason to do that.  Period.  It puts him in a bad position tactically.  Especially considering the size of Brown.  Add in the fact that there's a second person there, and Wilson could've been royally ed by being pinned in his own car.  Anyone who's been in that position before knows that the last place you want to be is trapped in your vehicle (unless you're driving away).

But hey, " the police!" and all that.  Or make it about race.  Whatever.

 

[Purple Flames]

I don't know why race keeps getting brought into this. Or why so much is read into the THC argument other than he's not the "pure, innocent kid" that the family / protesters keep making him out to be.

I also don't understand how some people in this thread are arguing the autopsy results. Based off the bullet trajectories through his body, he did not have his arms up in a standard surrender position. His blood being on the gun means he was close enough to the gun when it went off to be a credible threat to the officer. Now, I've heard the argument that "Officer Wilson pulled Brown into his car".

Why in the world would he do that?! He had no logical reason to do that. Period. It puts him in a bad position tactically. Especially considering the size of Brown. Add in the fact that there's a second person there, and Wilson could've been royally ed by being pinned in his own car. Anyone who's been in that position before knows that the last place you want to be is trapped in your vehicle (unless you're driving away).

But hey, " the police!" and all that. Or make it about race. Whatever.

I've noticed quite a trend in cases like this: whenever a black person is the victim of a shooting by a cop or a vigilante, racist white people can't seen to stop saying "stop making things about race!" while at the same time looking for any tiny little nugget of evidence that proves that the shooting was justified, be it character assassination (digging up pictures of them looking "thuggish" or otherwise intimidating), or trying to twist the facts of the case to fit their worldview ("His arms weren't hit in a way that shows his hands were, so CLEARLY he was bunrushing the cop!")

It's like it's impossible for a young black male to NOT be put on trial for his own death in this country.

 

[n8rockerasu]

I've noticed quite a trend in cases like this: whenever a black person is the victim of a shooting by a cop or a vigilante, racist white people can't seen to stop saying "stop making things about race!" while at the same time looking for any tiny little nugget of evidence that proves that the shooting was justified, be it character assassination (digging up pictures of them looking "thuggish" or otherwise intimidating), or trying to twist the facts of the case to fit their worldview ("His arms weren't hit in a way that shows his hands were, so CLEARLY he was bunrushing the cop!")

It's like it's impossible for a young black male to NOT be put on trial for his own death in this country.

"Who cares what color his skin is?" = racist

"Let's look at the autopsy report" = tiny little nugget of evidence

That makes sense to you?

 

[egofed]

I've noticed quite a trend in cases like this: whenever a black person is the victim of a shooting by a cop or a vigilante, racist white people can't seen to stop saying "stop making things about race!" while at the same time looking for any tiny little nugget of evidence that proves that the shooting was justified, be it character assassination (digging up pictures of them looking "thuggish" or otherwise intimidating), or trying to twist the facts of the case to fit their worldview ("His arms weren't hit in a way that shows his hands were, so CLEARLY he was bunrushing the cop!")

It's like it's impossible for a young black male to NOT be put on trial for his own death in this country.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA....whew....thanks for the laugh. The crazy victim mentality and persecution paranoia that you project really cracks me up. "Tiny little nuggets" like an eye witness testifying that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman punching him, ballistics evidence, blood evidence, etc. And character assassination??? There is video of Michael Brown stealing from a store, then pushing the clerk and threatening him with further violence. Brown assassinated his own character.....

 

[n8rockerasu]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA....whew....thanks for the laugh. The crazy victim mentality and persecution paranoia that you project really cracks me up. "Tiny little nuggets" like an eye witness testifying that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman punching him, ballistics evidence, blood evidence, etc. And character assassination??? There is video of Michael Brown stealing from a store, then pushing the clerk and threatening him with further violence. Brown assassinated his own character.....

The thing is, even the "strong-arm robbery" video is completely irrelevant. All bringing it up does is give Brown defenders another soapbox to cry police brutality/racism from...since the punishment for such an offense is not being shot to death on a city street. Sure, it shatters the kid's supposed squeaky clean image, but it does nothing to justify Wilson's actions.

All that needs to be known is what happened in that confrontation between the two of them...which we see from the autopsy report and the evidence that was revealed about the police cruiser. How "thugish" he dressed, or having marijuana in his system are just pile on points that make you look like you're "out to get him".

They're not even necessary. Wilson's injuries, placement of gunshot wounds, Brown's blood on the gun, etc. Facts about the specific incident in question. When you have the facts, you shouldn't have to do any extra convincing.

 

[Fearia]

The thing is, even the "strong-arm robbery" video is completely irrelevant. All bringing it up does is give Brown defenders another soapbox to cry police brutality/racism from...since the punishment for such an offense is not being shot to death on a city street. Sure, it shatters the kid's supposed squeaky clean image, but it does nothing to justify Wilson's actions.

All that needs to be known is what happened in that confrontation between the two of them...which we see from the autopsy report and the evidence that was revealed about the police cruiser. How "thugish" he dressed, or having marijuana in his system are just pile on points that make you look like you're "out to get him".

They're not even necessary. Wilson's injuries, placement of gunshot wounds, Brown's blood on the gun, etc. Facts about the specific incident in question. When you have the facts, you shouldn't have to do any extra convincing.

While I agree to a point, I think you're missing a big reason as to why certain aspects have been brought up. Past history is a good predictor of future events. If you're willing to rob someone with witnesses around, in broad daylight, and then walk casually home . . . well, you're more likely to have a physical altercation with police. If you're willing to break one law (smoking weed), you're more likely to break more.

This is why background checks are run when someone goes to a job interview. Or why drug tests are run when someone applies for security clearances within the government. Past behavior is a good indicator of habits and tendencies.

Now, dressing like a thug? Meh. Doesn't matter one way or the other what a person was wearing in most cases. But it can be an indicator in some. For example, if someone is wearing a lot of jewelry, designer clothes, and top of the line sneakers in a poor neighborhood . . . well, I'm assuming they made money in illegitimate means depending on how they portray themselves (ie: saggy pants, only wearing gang colors, etc.). In this case though? Meh. Shouldn't really matter what he was wearing.

 

[n8rockerasu]

While I agree to a point, I think you're missing a big reason as to why certain aspects have been brought up. Past history is a good predictor of future events. If you're willing to rob someone with witnesses around, in broad daylight, and then walk casually home . . . well, you're more likely to have a physical altercation with police. If you're willing to break one law (smoking weed), you're more likely to break more.

This is why background checks are run when someone goes to a job interview. Or why drug tests are run when someone applies for security clearances within the government. Past behavior is a good indicator of habits and tendencies.

Now, dressing like a thug? Meh. Doesn't matter one way or the other what a person was wearing in most cases. But it can be an indicator in some. For example, if someone is wearing a lot of jewelry, designer clothes, and top of the line sneakers in a poor neighborhood . . . well, I'm assuming they made money in illegitimate means depending on how they portray themselves (ie: saggy pants, only wearing gang colors, etc.). In this case though? Meh. Shouldn't really matter what he was wearing.

Yeah...but you're essentially making a case for profiling (which people will call you racist for) and you're mucking up solid, hard, irrefutable evidence with "probabilities" and "likelihoods". This case doesn't need any of that. Let the facts stand on their own and let the doubters argue with themselves.

 

[RedvsBlue]

While I agree to a point, I think you're missing a big reason as to why certain aspects have been brought up. Past history is a good predictor of future events. If you're willing to rob someone with witnesses around, in broad daylight, and then walk casually home . . . well, you're more likely to have a physical altercation with police. If you're willing to break one law (smoking weed), you're more likely to break more.

This is why background checks are run when someone goes to a job interview. Or why drug tests are run when someone applies for security clearances within the government. Past behavior is a good indicator of habits and tendencies.

Now, dressing like a thug? Meh. Doesn't matter one way or the other what a person was wearing in most cases. But it can be an indicator in some. For example, if someone is wearing a lot of jewelry, designer clothes, and top of the line sneakers in a poor neighborhood . . . well, I'm assuming they made money in illegitimate means depending on how they portray themselves (ie: saggy pants, only wearing gang colors, etc.). In this case though? Meh. Shouldn't really matter what he was wearing.

The courts disagree with you as there are only certain limited circumstances in which a person's past criminal activity is considered relevant and admissible. Thus applies most strongly for the defendant in a criminal trial but also applies to most witnesses in civil or criminal trials. Prior bad acts do not bear on future conduct as far as the rules of evidence are concerned.

 

[Purple Flames]

The courts disagree with you as there are only certain limited circumstances in which a person's past criminal activity is considered relevant and admissible. Thus applies most strongly for the defendant in a criminal trial but also applies to most witnesses in civil or criminal trials. Prior bad acts do not bear on future conduct as far as the rules of evidence are concerned.

Right. If you gun down someone in cold blood, and then later it's revealed he was a serial killer who had 15 bodies buried in his backyard, the guy who shot him dead is still going to jail.

 

[RedvsBlue]

Right. If you gun down someone in cold blood, and then later it's revealed he was a serial killer who had 15 bodies buried in his backyard, the guy who shot him dead is still going to jail.

That's not exactly the point I was making. Instead I was pointing out that in a criminal trial a defendant's past criminal activity is never admissible to prove their guilt in the current charge (it can be taken into account for sentencing typically though). Also, a witness's past criminal activity is never admissible except for certain circumstances because their past criminal activity doesn't mean their testimony is a lie.

 

[dohdough]

Right. If you gun down someone in cold blood, and then later it's revealed he was a serial killer who had 15 bodies buried in his backyard, the guy who shot him dead is still going to jail.

That's not exactly the point I was making. Instead I was pointing out that in a criminal trial a defendant's past criminal activity is never admissible to prove their guilt in the current charge (it can be taken into account for sentencing typically though). Also, a witness's past criminal activity is never admissible except for certain circumstances because their past criminal activity doesn't mean their testimony is a lie.

tl;dr LOLZ

Once a criminal; ALWAYS a criminal, especially if they're a thug. Don't you fools know anything about recidivism rates with those people that come from a certain culture? Give them a little THC and they turn into wild ape-like monkeys.

No, I'm not racist. Why do you ask? It's not like I used the n-word...

 

[n8rockerasu]

See what I mean? Evidence trumps bullshit.

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="n8rockerasu" post="12181833" timestamp="1414167583"]See what I mean? Evidence trumps bullshit.[/quote]
Except when it's dohdough. Then bullshit just fights bullshit. Ha.

In this particular case, I'd guess the robbery would be allowed in trial though because it directly preludes the shooting event. It very well can show motivation as to why Brown would've attacked the officer.

 

[dohdough]

Except when it's dohdough. Then bullshit just fights bullshit. Ha. In this particular case, I'd guess the robbery would be allowed in trial though because it directly preludes the shooting event. It very well can show motivation as to why Brown would've attacked the officer.

So what you're saying is that I (knowingly) employ the same rhetorical tricks as a response when you and n8 pretend not to? In that case, I agree!

But please, tell us more about how familiar you are with black people and black culture. Marky Mark must REALLY be living up the Thug Lyfe(tm) in that case.

edit: I can't wait until your inevitable posts about you arresting more "thugs" than rednecks and how it proves that black culture is inherently more violent and criminal than white culture because Facts(tm) aka confirmation bias.

It makes me sick thinking that you'd be the type of cop harassing the kids I work with.

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="dohdough" post="12181948" timestamp="1414170390"]So what you're saying is that I (knowingly) employ the same rhetorical tricks as a response when you and n8 pretend not to? In that case, I agree!

But please, tell us more about how familiar you are with black people and black culture. Marky Mark must REALLY be living up the Thug Lyfe(tm) in that case.

edit: I can't wait until your inevitable posts about you arresting more "thugs" than rednecks and how it proves that black culture is inherently more violent and criminal than white culture because Facts(tm) aka confirmation bias.

It makes me sick thinking that you'd be the type of cop harassing the kids I work with.[/quote]
Actually, you're wrong. You assume I'm racist because I think Officer Wilson acted in self defense. Which makes you an idiot.

I think he acted in self defense based off the fact that no officer in their right mind would pull anyone into a car with them (as the original witness said he did). It's not sound tactically at all.

Based off my experience, if someone thinks they're going to jail, they're more likely to fight. Even if the officer doesn't have a clue that the person just committed a crime or has warrants. Seeing as Brown just committed a crime, that fits too.

But hey, the police and if you don't agree, racist!

 

[Purple Flames]

It's all about the wording, folks: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does?detail=email#

 

[GBAstar]

It's all about the wording, folks: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does?detail=email#

Actually it's all about the source:

Daily Kos /ˈkoʊs/ is an American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a liberal point of view.[2][3][4][5] It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party with a particular focus on progressive policies and candidates. Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia ("DKosopedia"), glossaries, and other content.

Daily Kos was founded by Markos Moulitsas (Kos from the last syllable of his first name, his nickname while in the military) in 2002. In 2007, its parent company, Kos Media, LLC, began a fellowship program to help fund a new generation of progressive activists. About a dozen contributing editors provide content for the site, with three to four new editors being chosen from the Daily Kos community every year.

But I wouldn't expect someone, who thinks it's a natural and acceptable reaction to grab a cops gun, to think in an unbiased fashion.

...or, the cop pulled his gun and Brown went into defense mode and tried to grab the gun to keep from getting shot. If someone was close enough to me where I could grab their gun I'd do the same thing. As would you, cop or not.

 

[Fearia]

I love the ery that this reporter has come up with in that article. Specifically:

If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, it means ... his hand was near the gun when it went off. We don't know why or how his hand got there. It's just as likely that he was trying to block the gun because he was afraid that Darren Wilson was about to kill him.

No ing shit he was trying to kill him. Officer Wilson had Brown ON TOP OF HIM IN HIS OWN CAR. No one has refuted that. All the witnesses agree that happened. And there's no reasonable explanation that doesn't point to Brown as the aggressor. If I want to kill you, I'm not pulling you on top of me (putting myself in a defensive position) in my own car. Once again, there's no tactical reason to do this. It is against everything trained, especially when outnumbered (2 to 1).

Of course, it makes much more sense that Officer Wilson was a racist who just wanted to kill Brown in cold blood. Brown was obviously just pulled into the car and defended himself against a crazed police officer.

. . .

 

[Finger_Shocker]

Even if Brown was shot at close range, the final shot(S) ( SHOTS you know the MULTIPLE BULLETS ) all came at a distance.  

So even if you were to play the self-defense card, there is a line when self-defense becomes aggression. 

Lets humor some of the morons above, even if Brown was the aggressor first and was shot trying to "attack" poor Officer Wilson and got shot at close range.  Where is you explanation on to why he was subsequent GUNNED down at a distance feets away from Wilson.

Well its simple after Wilson first shot Brown, Brown backed off since he was injured, as he was backing off instead of Wilson asking Brown to surrender or stop or lay on the ground, Wilson became the aggressor and decided to SHOOT TO KILL at that point.  Now as for why Brown probably didn't raise his hand.   When you are injured the last thing you would do is be able to easily comply with demands while your mind is focus on the pain.   Go hit yourself with a hammer really hard, and try to think and process another person talking to you right after.  Because you farking can't since your brain is focus on the pain and also the flee/flight from danger mode.

There is a line where self-defense no longer works and where one becomes a defender to becoming a aggressor. 

And this is why those who would defend Zimmerman are also wrong, because Zimmerman was the aggressor who started a fight, and when he happened to be on the losing end decided to murder someone.  You have no right to instigate or start fights and then use the "self-defense" card.  I'm pretty sure anyone here who is chased, followed, or backed into a corner will fight back, which Martin had possibly the legal right to do so.

But we know those who failed to realize this simple and understand this concept aren't uninformed, they are just bigots and racist since to them its a "black/minority" person.

How many unarmed "white-eys" do police/white people gunned down annually ?  Yup no possible racist/bigotry there.

And to address Mr.Stupid above, lets say the police came and shot a innocent/unarmed "non-black" person.  That person love ones say he was a good guy and living a "model-life".  Then all of a sudden it was proven he didn't pay his taxes, oh my oh my this person wasn't really a good guy and living a model life, so that mean there must be reasons why he was shot..  I mean he broke one law guess he going to break more.  Such a argument against someone is garbage.  But we all know some people will say or argue anything to justify the death of another person.  Hey our gov't having being doing that for years, with our nonsense wars

 

[Fearia]

Hey, let's humor the person above me:

So, Officer Wilson defends himself and Brown flees. But oh wait, while fleeing somehow all of the shots hit him IN THE FRONT. Man, he must be really good at running backwards!

But hey, it's not like he could attack again after being shot in the hand. Nope, no way that could happen. And there's certainly no research involving an attacker closing distance and shooting out there. Oh . . . wait . . . the "21 foot rule". In which a readied person still, in a majority of cases, could not get shots off on an attacker before they closed the distance. In training, it's expanded to 35 feet, and assailants can still bridge the gap and cause serious damage / death.

Add in tunnel vision, the possibility of multiple assailants, and injuries, and it's a no brainer. Justified use of force. Because when someone is charging you in that situation, your brain goes into auto-pilot. Distance becomes incredibly hard to differentiate. And let's not forget the shots to the top of the head (the final shots, per the coroner) and the rest that are angled in a downward angle (as if he's charging, or falling forward).


You had to go back to Zimmerman / Martin case, didn't you? Since I haven't spoken on that, let's go over it real quick:
-Zimmerman is an idiot. But he wasn't the "aggressor". Being somewhere, even if someone doesn't want you there, is not an act of aggression unless it's within one's own home.
-*EVEN IF* Zimmerman said something dumb that got Martin to swing, he still is not an "aggressor", per the law. If a group of Westboro Assholes decided to protest and say shitty things, I still can't punch them. Even if it's super shitty things that they're saying.
-Had Zimmerman been the aggressor and thrown blows, wouldn't there be defensive wounds on Martin? Bruising of blocked hits? Abrasions beyond an offensive hand wound?
-Zimmerman's back was covered in fresh grass stains and condensation from the ground. The officer's on scene noted it, and took pictures.
-Based off of a timeline of events, and the pace that Martin was walking (from security camera footage in the surrounding area), at the time of the shooting Martin should've made it home by the time of the original confrontation. He had to of doubled back to be where he was at that time.
-An eyewitness, who couldn't ID who was who, said they saw someone on top of another person punching them. But what's this? Oh, the stains on Zimmerman's back put him as the person on the ground, on his back . . .

But hey, in your world, if an Officer pulls a gun in self-defense, it's totally cool to reach for it. And if someone is following you, or says mean things, you get to punch them in the face and mount them. Makes sense, and is not an act of aggression at all.

Now, do I like Zimmerman or think that Martin should be dead? No. It's a pointless death that shouldn't of happened, but to put the blame squarely on Zimmerman is ignorant. It takes two to tango. Now, should he of not allowed that distance to be covered and had an intermediary tool (ie: pepper spray)? Yup. Is he legally obligated to know everything and have perfect 20/20 hindsight? No.

You're the one making it about race. I don't give a if the person is black, white, purple, or orange. What I care about is the circumstances that lead to the death. If you're a white 300 lb dude, and attack an officer and wrestle for his gun, I'd expect him to shoot. Hell, if you're a white 300 lb chick, I'd expect the same damn thing. Too many officers have died at the hands of their own weapons. But it's okay, because the assailants were unarmed before they had the officer's weapon!

God, your reasoning is such crap. If a person is innocent, they should not be shot. Even for previous crimes. But to be innocent, you have to actually NOT attack an officer. Would I be outraged if Officer Wilson had taken a compliant Brown, put him in the back seat of his car and started pummeling him mercilessly? Yes. Would that excuse Brown to defend himself? Yes. But EVEN THE WITNESSES DON'T HAVE THAT HAPPENING, PERIOD. Being unarmed does not make you innocent!

And, once again, the crime immediately preluding the event explains the aggression. You don't even have to do the job to understand that. Watch a few episodes of Cops, and you'll see that those that run, tend to run because they think they're going to be arrested. Those that fight, it's the same exact reasoning. Warrants or being caught in the act or directly after, it doesn't matter. That's how it happens.

The aggressive act of attacking an Officer is what killed Brown. Period. Not being black. Not his previous crime (despite it being the motivation of his aggression, most likely). Not the fact that Officer Wilson is just an asshole cop with a blood thirst. The fact that he attacked Officer Wilson is why he died.

 

[Finger_Shocker]

If Officer Wilson was so worried about these possible "multiple" assailants, funny where the audio tapes that he calls in for BACKUP,

you know the part where officers call for additional reinforcements when he/she assume they are dealing with more then one suspect?

And have some one never backed up after being shot..

Oh farking yes, did you see the video of the S.C cop who opened fired on a UNARMED individual.  he was facing the cop while also backing up in a running fashion as the officer continuing FIRING!!!!

You sir, are making bullshit in defense of this act

Zimmerman was told not to get involved, he go involved and how do you know Zimmerman didn't put his hands on Martin first.  Once a stranger puts a hand on you UNWANTED-LY, he became the aggressor regardless if the end he got his ass kicked..

Unless you think its ok for you as a stranger to grab a women the same way and not expect her to fight/hit back either...  Are you justifying possible rape ??

However if she does hit back, I bet its legal to shoot her.... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a farking joke

 

[Fearia]

If Officer Wilson was so worried about these possible "multiple" assailants, funny where the audio tapes that he calls in for BACKUP,

you know the part where officers call for additional reinforcements when he/she assume they are dealing with more then one suspect?

And have some one never backed up after being shot..

Oh farking yes, did you see the video of the S.C cop who opened fired on a UNARMED individual. he was facing the cop while also backing up in a running fashion as the officer continuing FIRING!!!!

You sir, are making bullshit in defense of this act

Zimmerman was told not to get involved, he go involved and how do you know Zimmerman didn't put his hands on Martin first. Once a stranger puts a hand on you UNWANTED-LY, he became the aggressor regardless if the end he got his ass kicked..

Unless you think its ok for you as a stranger to grab a women the same way and not expect her to fight/hit back either... Are you justifying possible rape ??

However if she does hit back, I bet its legal to shoot her.... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a farking joke

Yes, because calling for backup while being attacked is totally an easy thing to do! Holy shit, your reasoning is awesome! Like how Brown was retreating in a BACKWARDS motion but shot at a DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY! WOW! He must of somehow distorted the laws of physics with his racism!

Is it possible that Zimmerman was the aggressor? Possible, but beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Likely? Ehhhh . . . I don't know. But I do know he was injured and had the forensic evidence to back his story up.

But hey, way to totally strawman it up in here. And make it entirely about race, and how the police and guns are just evil!

 

[Finger_Shocker]

Yes, because calling for backup while being attacked is totally an easy thing to do! Holy shit, your reasoning is awesome! Like how Brown was retreating in a BACKWARDS motion but shot at a DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY! WOW! He must of somehow distorted the laws of physics with his racism!

Is it possible that Zimmerman was the aggressor? Possible, but beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Likely? Ehhhh . . . I don't know. But I do know he was injured and had the forensic evidence to back his story up.

But hey, way to totally strawman it up in here. And make it entirely about race, and how the police and guns are just evil!

Hey here is a bright idea,

Why didn't Officer Wilson call for backup when he came upon Brown? Why didn't he call it in that he was trailing some perps and may need backup, ALL BEFORE CONFRONTING BROWN... Or do you think no better yet somehow believe that Brown saw a police car and like any Black man on Dope, he went APE-shit and ran up to the police car to purposely attack and steal Wilson's gun ....?

You mean the first thing you learn in LEO school, call it in if you suspect something and asked for backup, unless the call came out first

You might as well admit you are bigoted toward minorities ..

Don't forget Brown probably never reported his taxes either, he a total harden criminal. I mean he definitely probably not a model citizen and you know how a tax evader can one day choose to commit even bigger crimes....LOL

And guess the fark why there was reasonable doubt about Zimmerman, he killed the only witness who can dispute his claim that he didn't make/start/was the first aggressor !!!

You sir, are unbelievable

 

[Fearia]

Wow, backseat quarterbacking a job you don't understand.  Here, let me explain something to you:

If you're in the middle of street and I'm only planning on telling you to get out of the street, I'm not calling it in.  I'm not asking for backup when there's no damn reason.  You know why?  Because it's a waste of time, resources, and idiotic.  But hey, way to know the job!   You're great!  Let's have officers call for backup whenever they run into more than one person!

At the time, Brown wasn't a suspect to Wilson.  He was some dude in the street.  The robbery hadn't gotten passed down to officers yet.  He was not aware that Brown was suspected (and according to video footage and witnesses, the actual perpetrator) of a robbery.  But you know who knew that Brown committed a robbery just recently?  Holy shit, himself and his buddy!  And did he know that Wilson didn't know that?  NOPE!

And even IF Wilson had called it in, do you think backup would've arrived instantly because there are, get this, 2 males being told to get out of the street?  Do you think THAT is a priority call?  And then, if he had called it in, do you think back up arrives instantly?  Dear God, you're smart!

But hey, way to try to paint an entirely different picture than what has been given to you.  And way to try to shift the tone entirely to everyone is racist by bringing up other cases that aren't related.  STRAWMAN.  YOU'RE GOOD AT IT!

 

[Finger_Shocker]

So in your mind, the first thing in Brown head was to attack the officer instead of running away when he saw the police car..

You mean Wilson wasted time and resource and showed what a jackass cop on a power trip or wanted to push some minorities around, by approaching a possible "JAYWALKER" ( Brown )

Well now that you established Brown was also a JAYWALKER, well he must be that dangerous criminal to strike a police officer first

But at least you shut up and can't defend Zimmerman anymore, since I shot your attempted defense of him out of the waters

 

[Fearia]

God, do you have a hard on for the police or what?

He wasted resources by telling 2 people to get out of the ing street?  Are you ing serious?  Damned if you help someone, damned if you don't apparently.

HE'S A DANGER BECAUSE HE STRUCK A POLICE OFFICER AND WENT FOR HIS GUN, NOT BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE STREET.  Holy ing shit, you're dumb.  How many times does that statement need to be said before you get it?  Way to show your bias and your hard on for police.  Get the outta here, kid.  You make no sense from a logical point of view.

 

[Finger_Shocker]

LOL.... I don't have a hard on for police, only a person who would defend bad cops to the end have the hard on ( YOU )

Confronting a JAYWALKER !!!   I'm sure Officer Wilson have a history of tell WHITE kids to not JAYWALK, I mean police should all go to school and tell the dangers of JAYWALKING...

And why would Officer Wilson need to be outside of the car to confront JAYWALKERS?  Could he use the police microphone or be inside his car while asking them to stay off the street?

Why the confrontation?

If you have a 200lb man coming after you being in a SOLID METAL car with a radio to call for backup sure sounds like a better way to defend yourself then stepping outside and trying to confront a 200lb individual no?

Oh wait unless he had a gun as was willing to use it, he must have turn the safety off before the confrontation you know just in case

 

[Fearia]

God, you're a ing idiot.

So, Officer Wilson asked 2 people in the middle of the street to disperse . . . because they were black?  Yeah, makes perfect sense.  I know when I'm driving down the street, and I see 2 people in the middle of it, the first thing I go is "Man, is that person white or black so I know if I should tell them to move?"  ing idiotic.

So, why would he attempt to get out of his car?  Well, for one, non-compliance.  Or perhaps they were mouthing off.  Why the confrontation?  Maybe because he was confronted?  Oh, but that couldn't of happened.  Never.  The guy who attacked an officer couldn't of possibly done that.

If only the police officer's job was to do nothing, and flee when confronted.  Man, that'd be the job!  I hate to break it to you, but if attacked while on the job, an officer's objectives are 1) To survive and 2) To arrest the assailant.  Not run the away and hide.  That's your job.

Holy shit, you know your firearms!  SAFETIES ARE SO HARD TO TURN OFF!  It's not like it's trained into us to flip that little switch while drawing!  And all guns must have them!  Those mysterious Glocks that so many LE agencies use certainly don't have passive safeties that require no additional work to use at all!

Oh wait.  You're a ing idiot who's talking out his ass and knows nothing of the job, or on firearms.  Good job.  You keep digging yourself deeper.  Why don't you take your cop block hard on to another thread?

 

[Msut77]

I

No one has refuted that. All the witnesses agree that happened

i dont remember that.

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="Msut77" post="12184317" timestamp="1414276297"]i dont remember that.[/quote]
Multiple witnesses and forensics coincide with this. Including the main eyewitness against, who said Wilson pulled him into the car.

 

[UncleBob]

Don't forget Brown probably never reported his taxes either, he a total harden criminal. I mean he definitely probably not a model citizen and you know how a tax evader can one day choose to commit even bigger crimes....LOL

No, being a tax evader gets you the position of Secretary of the Treasury by President Obama.

 

[Msut77]

Multiple witnesses and forensics coincide with this. Including the main eyewitness against, who said Wilson pulled him into the car.

it changed from all?

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="Msut77" post="12189210" timestamp="1414457157"]it changed from all?[/quote]
All that witnessed the initial confrontation have stated that. Which encompasses the term multiple.

 

[Msut77]

You said all initially, I remember there being some differences to put it mildly. It Was Kind Of Like When Pictures Of An Orbital fractur were being floated around.

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="Msut77" post="12190090" timestamp="1414487389"]You said all initially, I remember there being some differences to put it mildly. It Was Kind Of Like When Pictures Of An Orbital fractur were being floated around.[/quote]
Every report that I've read that had a witness that saw the full confrontation cited a struggle in the vehicle. Differing opinions of who instigated the struggle have been stated, but no one who saw the onset say it didn't happen.

But hey, technicalities on the word "all" are suddenly going to make Officer Wilson guilty?

Next argument?

 

[Msut77]

what "argument" have you made worth engaging?

"I think he acted in self defense based off the fact that no officer in their right mind would pull anyone into a car with them (as the original witness said he did). It's not sound tactically at all. "

There was a video maybe two weeks ago where a LEO asked someone for ID and then shot wildly at them when the person did as they were asked. You are operating from a set of assumptions to put it mildly.

 

[n8rockerasu]

what "argument" have you made worth engaging?

"I think he acted in self defense based off the fact that no officer in their right mind would pull anyone into a car with them (as the original witness said he did). It's not sound tactically at all. "

There was a video maybe two weeks ago where a LEO asked someone for ID and then shot wildly at them when the person did as they were asked. You are operating from a set of assumptions to put it mildly.

Stop referencing that stupid ass SC shooting video. In what way does a police officer making a quick assumption that a guy is lunging into his truck to grab a weapon make any kind of case for the possibility of a different police officer, in a different situation pulling a much larger man into his car?

 

[UncleBob]

Welcome to CAG. Where anecdotes are meaningless, unless them embolden your side of the argument. Then, they mean everything.

 

[Msut77]

Stop referencing that stupid ass SC shooting video. In what way does a police officer making a quick assumption that a guy is lunging into his truck to grab a weapon make any kind of case for the possibility of a different police officer, in a different situation pulling a much larger man into his car?

I am not going to stop making a reference so you can feel better.

 

[Msut77]

Stop referencing that stupid ass SC shooting video. In what way does a police officer making a quick assumption that a guy is lunging into his truck to grab a weapon make any kind of case for the possibility of a different police officer, in a different situation pulling a much larger man into his car?

I am not going to stop making a reference so you can feel better.

 

[Fearia]

So, one innocent shot overrides logic and forensic evidence in a totally different case? But hey, let's forget the vast majority of good shoots and arrests and concentrate on the very few bad ones. That works!

Once again, can you explain to me why, while outnumbered, an officer would break every officer safety rule and pull someone into a car onto themself?!

Idiotic logic is idiotic. If you read the thread, I've made multiple points that have not been addressed. But idiots that know absolutely nothing on deadly force situations are taking out of their asses and ignoring facts. Wahoo!

 

[Msut77]

As if I could not get more examples.

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="Msut77" post="12193364" timestamp="1414578587"]As if I could not get more examples.[/quote]
Hey buddy, you do realize how many totally valid arrests and defensive shootings happen in comparison, right?

Take your bullshit "all cops are evil" elsewhere. Maybe go circle jerk it with your cop block buddies.

For fun: in 2012 there were 521,196 arrests made for just violent crimes. That's roughly 1,400 per day just for violent crimes. And you're quibbling over 1 bad shoot? .

 

[Msut77]

Where did I even imply All cops are evil?

I think you must be used to dealing with much dumber people who fall for that kind of shit.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

You should ignore Msut, he doesn't like facts. Trust me, I learned the hard way. 

 

[rebelschs]

You should ignore Msut, he doesn't like facts. Trust me, I learned the hard way.

I am not sure he is in the same reality that we are at times.

 

[Purple Flames]

So, as we wait for the grand jury's decision about whether or not they indict Darren Wilson (my money is on not. Let's be real here), let's get everyone updated:

- Here are some myths and facts about the shooting: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/15/myths-and-facts-on-ferguson-shooting/19085451/?sf33737479=%5B%271%27%5D&sf33737282=%5B%271%27%5D 

- Earlier today, Gov Nixon declared a state of emergency (if you have hypertension, I suggest you avoid reading the comments): https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=314191525445177&id=272670539597276&fref=nf

- The other day, the KKK handed out literature threatening "lethal force" against the people of ferguson, and Anonymous responded by outing several members of the Klan throughout various social media. Here's a fun fact: a few of them are St. Louis cops: http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/anonymous-operation-hoodsoff-ids-st-louis

Remind me again as to why this shooting "isn't about race" as so many of you love to chant as your mantra.

 

[Fearia]

Because Officer Wilson shot him in self defense (allegedly. supported by forensic evidence), not because he's black?

Seriously, do you believe this happened exclusively because of the race of the deceased? If so, I feel bad for you.