Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
But there would go the evidence of the eye witness reports saying otherwise. And the only reason people came to the conclusion in the first place.
Too often it seems like there's nothing that would convince anyone to change their side. Of course this goes for every side of every single argument (doesn't matter the evidence you present you're going to have a young-Earth creationist tell you the world is 5000 years old).
In Trayvon Martin's case there could have been video of Martin nursing a kitten back to health before being brutally attacked and shot by Zimmerman and people would still have said Zimmerman was innocent by the time the trial was over. Likewise, you could have had video of Martin coming at Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and slamming his head into the concrete floor unprovoked and people would still call him guilty...and white.
I'm just curious at what point or what evidence in this case would be required for the people who are so sure that the cop was a racist and/or corrupt murderer to second guess their original assumptions. If it isn't that Michael Brown had just committed a violent crime and the eye witness is lying/misremember, what is it?
I like to believe I'm "neutral" but because I wasn't willing to condemn the officer without all the facts I have a feeling many people will see me on the officer's side. But if the coroner report shows that Michael Brown was shot in the back at a distance, I'll likely be hopping on the cop-is-a-murderer bandwagon. So what will it take all those people who came in here calling for his head to change their minds?
|
The problem is that the eyewitness reports have all been pretty consistent with each other. The story coming from police has been a whole lot less so. First he had stolen a candy bar, then he hadn't stolen anything, now they have tape of him stealing cigars. But they didn't even realize that he was even a suspect in that robbery until after his death. The officer was not responding to the robbery. If the officer wasn't responding to the robbery, why did he interact with Brown? And in those three minutes before the other officer arrived, just what happened?
There are zero answers to anything in those three minutes. Police were all too happy to point out that Brown had just committed a crime--but there is zero information from the shooting itself, which is what has caused such community uproar. Again--the police did not realize until after Brown was dead that he was involved in a crime. What reasoning did the officer have to shoot Brown? What prompted the confrontation? Those are huge questions that are being completely ignored in favor of pointing out "but look, look! He just stole stuff!" Pretty sure minor assault and theft doesn't warrant deadly force. And if the officer actually was injured, if he actually was acting in self-defense, why is there no report from the officer himself?
This police force hasn't proven to be very trustworthy, and in the days following, they've proven to enjoy using excessive force. Some transparency of this investigation would go a long way toward diffusing the situation, only the entire process looks a whole lot like a coverup.
Also, after a single night of reprieve, riot cops are back, threatening to arrest protesters and media alike. "Arrest or other actions," is the threat. Not sure what "other actions" could mean.
Edit: Apparently there is rioting happening now. This whole thing is just a disaster.