Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Yes my answering your question was clearly moving the goalposts

So you don't see how it was a robbery still? Do you disagree the video shows a robbery?

If you do, I don't get your original question

in what world is that a "robbery"?

If you don't, I don't understand what you believe robbery is.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Cops never have to pay, just ask Rodney King. The feds may get him on civil rights charges, but usually a cop gets to do what they want.

Clearly you're biased. My question stands, what if the investigation clears the cop?

[CaptainCrunch]

I tend to think that some people want to convict the officer right now, based on the emotional reaction of the shooting.

Just as some people want to sell that Browns shooting was justified because of the violent robbery (And yes in the eyes of the law his actions in the store were both violent and a robbery)

At the end of the day the system has to be emotionally blind. We can't convict because it makes us feel better and we can't excuse because it makes us feel better.

The problem it that the Riots are going to continue until they see the cop hang.

The other side is going to continue to get angrier unless they see the cop cleared.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

So without knowing anything except some very basic facts you determined the cop was gonna walk away from this? And what if the investigation clears him? It appears you'd made up your mind on who was in the wrong as soon as you first heard about the incident.

Based on the quality of the 'defense' of the officers actions that have emerged up to this point and the subsequent attempts to limit information on the incident, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume at this point that the armed officer is more responsible for the current situation than the unarmed alleged suspect.

When taken in their entirety and mixed with an overall argument of police lacking legitimacy doing their own investigations, I believe his argument is warranted and is at least understandable.

At this point, the burden of proof is on the officer involved and his police department, and they are doing a terrible job of investigating, communicating, or both.

Their actions, attempting to downplay the severity of the shooting incident and the culpability of the officer and the victim leave them little in the way of 'benefit of the doubt'. This can be extrapolated onto other officers, departments and the profession as a whole.

That the police department themselves have obstructed justice throughout these events should remove even the slightest bit of dismissive tone from your posts.

I know you are a cop and I'm not painting you with the same brush, but now isn't the time for solidarity amongst your profession.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by neo45

It depends on the witness. His friend who was with him is probably the number one witness but the cop's lawyer is going to destroy him if he testifies

I've been saying it since the beginning that the cop is going to walk away from this. Police defend their own and they would need to have him dead to rights to actually send him to jail

As you mentioned his friend is not an independent witness.


My point was from those posts, the witness evidence does not match the physical evidence.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Based on the quality of the 'defense' of the officers actions that have emerged up to this point and the subsequent attempts to limit information on the incident, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume at this point that the armed officer is more responsible for the current situation than the unarmed alleged suspect..

It's an ongoing investigation with the FBI involved. I don't think we should assume anything based on not hearing from the officer.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Clearly you're biased. My question stands, what if the investigation clears the cop?

Clearly you are biased if you think an investigation by cops of cops is going to reveal anything. If Eric Holder and the Justice Department clears the guy then I would believe that, the kangaroo court that is an internal cop investigation, no. The fact is that in any other situation where an unarmed man gets shot 6 times the guy doing the shooting gets charged with murder. Somehow this cop has not been charged with murder. Why have they not started a murder investigation? In any other situation there would be a murder investigation, instead it sure appears to be an attempt at an internal coverup. Releasing his name late, then releasing it on the same day that you for reasons that nobody can explain release tape of the robbery,

Charge the guy with murder and let a jury of his peers from Ferguson judge him, just like the judicial system is suppose to work.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I tend to think that some people want to convict the officer right now, based on the emotional reaction of the shooting.

Just as some people want to sell that Browns shooting was justified because of the violent robbery (And yes in the eyes of the law his actions in the store were both violent and a robbery)

At the end of the day the system has to be emotionally blind. We can't convict because it makes us feel better and we can't excuse because it makes us feel better.

The problem it that the Riots are going to continue until they see the cop hang.

The other side is going to continue to get angrier unless they see the cop cleared.

I agree with that, charge the guy and have a jury of his peers in Ferguson try him. If you cannot find an impartial jury in Ferguson go to Harlem and get a jury of his peers to try him.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Clearly you are biased if you think an investigation by cops of cops is going to reveal anything. If Eric Holder and the Justice Department clears the guy then I would believe that, the kangaroo court that is an internal cop investigation, no. The fact is that in any other situation where an unarmed man gets shot 6 times the guy doing the shooting gets charged with murder. Somehow this cop has not been charged with murder. Why have they not started a murder investigation? In any other situation there would be a murder investigation, instead it sure appears to be an attempt at an internal coverup. Releasing his name late, then releasing it on the same day that you for reasons that nobody can explain release tape of the robbery,

Charge the guy with murder and let a jury of his peers from Ferguson judge him, just like the judicial system is suppose to work.

I would think that the first thing that any defense attorney would do would be to move the trial away from Ferguson, I doubt there is any way that they can get a un tainted jury.

Second of all, I don't think that there is enough evidence to go to trial, that's why the investigation was on-going. We still have conflicting witnesses, the forensics isn't near complete yet, or do you just want to rush to conviction?

If you go to trial based on an emotional demand, and the defense cuts it to threads you can't retrial.

At this point there is lots of oversight on this, but you can't rush it to trial because it makes people feel better.

This isn't a kangeroo court system like the Soviet Union in the mid 60's.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would think that the first thing that any defense attorney would do would be to move the trial away from Ferguson, I doubt there is any way that they can get a un tainted jury.

Second of all, I don't think that there is enough evidence to go to trial, that's why the investigation was on-going. We still have conflicting witnesses, the forensics isn't near complete yet, or do you just want to rush to conviction?

If you go to trial based on an emotional demand, and the defense cuts it to threads you can't retrial.

At this point there is lots of oversight on this, but you can't rush it to trial because it makes people feel better.

This isn't a kangeroo court system like the Soviet Union in the mid 60's.

The bolded part is definitely fair http://news.yahoo.com/40-fbi-agents-...222003434.html

40 FBI agents have arrived in Ferguson, Missouri to investigate the shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson announced Saturday.

They had to get the FBI a week after the shooting and thank god they did because noone would believe the kangaroo court of an internal investigation. They have been on the ground for 5 days, they probably need more time for sure.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I agree with that, charge the guy and have a jury of his peers in Ferguson try him. If you cannot find an impartial jury in Ferguson go to Harlem and get a jury of his peers to try him.

Can a cop get a jury of peers that isn't a board of 12 other cops? Given the nature of what they have to do, is the average citizen actually capable of being a "peer" to be a juror?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Can a cop get a jury of peers that isn't a board of 12 other cops? Given the nature of what they have to do, is the average citizen actually capable of being a "peer" to be a juror?

maybe a group of 12 murders to judge a murderer?

12 Rapists for a rapist?

Can I appropriately judge someone for arson if I've never committed arson?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Where did I say he was a violent criminal? I'm saying I don't think he paid. Your jump to conclusions mat is out I see.

English needs a real passive form. I didn't mean you you.

And fearing for your life or "being scared" as you trivialized it is absolutely justification for defending yourself

I don't agree, and most legal systems in the western world say otherwise. Thing is, most legal systems try to steer away from stuff that's really hard to prove, such as whether or not someone was scared or angry. It's more about what actually happened, or in this case, what was the realistic level of threat based on what the accused knew and were there really no other options.

So for example, being scared of the big black kid is not an excuse, because from the point of the law he was just a big, unarmed kid and who was killed by a trained, armed professional, despite being of no danger to anyone before the officer made contact with him. The details only matter as to whether the officer should be convicted of murder or whatever "serious professional f***up" is in legalese. (Or something in between, obviously.)

Here's a small comparison on attitudes as represented by law:

In Finland, even if you were clearly under attack, you're not a professional and you're much smaller, if you had a gun or even just a knife and the other side was unarmed, it's extremely likely that you're going to get slapped with something along the lines of "manslaughter committed as exaggerated self-defense." (I don't know what would be the technical translation, it's a different legal system.)

Also, if you even kick someone when they're down, that's going from defense to offense and makes you instantly into a criminal. Shooting someone an extra time, that's likely a murder charge.

Basically, on this side of the world, it's really difficult to kill someone and not get convicted of at least something.


Let's compare what I've described to the American way:

...if that results in the aggressor dying then it's unfortunate.

Sure, we're trivializing things.

[Nage Waza]

Brown was involved in an alleged violent robbery followed by an altercation with a police officer who probably did not know Brown was the robber.

Brown's prior behaviour is very relevant to what took place with the police, as is the officer's.

The facts are slowly coming out, to jump on the officer at this stage is crazy.

[BigBrodieFan]

I live on the border of Missouri and this is what I've HEARD:

Michael Brown was walking away from a cop and the cop told him to stop. He then stopped and put his hands over his head and said 'don't shoot.' But was shot six times.

This is what I've read to be facts:

Michael brown is 6'4 and over 290 lbs.
Michael brown walked in a convenience store and stole from the owner and then pushed him around a bit.
Michael Brown was walking in the middle of the road and was asked to stop as he was holding up traffic, he refused.
There was a physical altercation where the officer and Michael Brown struggled, during which time the officer suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious

More non factual- heresay things I've heard:

They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move. "They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leaned in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face."here 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 6-foot-4, 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.

The liberal media always reports one side of the story- terrified of racial situations. I hope that peace prevails and idiots like Al Sharpton quits poking the hornet's nest.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I live on the border of Missouri and this is what I've HEARD:

Michael Brown was walking away from a cop and the cop told him to stop. He then stopped and put his hands over his head and said 'don't shoot.' But was shot six times.

This is what I've read to be facts:

Michael brown is 6'4 and over 290 lbs.
Michael brown walked in a convenience store and stole from the owner and then pushed him around a bit.
Michael Brown was walking in the middle of the road and was asked to stop as he was holding up traffic, he refused.
There was a physical altercation where the officer and Michael Brown struggled, during which time the officer suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious

I would like to see some evidence of this. Right now, I believe, the only websites reporting it are also using x-ray images from 2008 and are hardly credible.

As far as I can tell, the only facts are the officer went to the hospital for swelling of the face that was reported long ago. The extent of his injuries are unknown.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think you are going to find it hard to prove the officer is a cold blooded murderer, even with many witnesses. There are already people coming forward as credible witnesses who are bringing forward details that do not support the narrative. Add to the story the fact the victim had just previously committed a violent crime and the officer claims he was attacked by the victim, it will be hard to prove the officer did not fear for his life.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Why are you willing to accept the witness reports that state that he was attacking the officer yet absolutely deny that there are witness reports that state otherwise.

I would require evidence indicating anything else occurred, which I have certainly not seen.

Do you accept that by your very definition of evidence (witness reports) there is evidence that something else might have occurred? I'm just trying to understand why you are being so selective here?

[nik-]

Poor Bagor doesn't realize who he's arguing with

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bagor

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Why are you willing to accept the witness reports that state that he was attacking the officer yet absolutely deny that there are witness reports that state otherwise.
Do you accept that by your very definition of evidence (witness reports) there is evidence that something else might have occurred? I'm just trying to understand why you are being so selective here?

Originally Posted by nik-

Poor Bagor doesn't realize who he's arguing with

Haha, yeah I was going to say, NagaWaza will contradict himself repeatedly like that in arguments and never even see it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

We're in a thread where people have seen the video showing the robbery committed by Michael Brown, had his friend and reluctant accomplice admit to the robbery as well as the family attorney confirm it and still they deny that a robbery took place. Yet, Nage Waza is the person you want to insult for being contradictory?