Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nik-

What does it matter if we're not waiting for a report to be released to discuss it on an internet forum? It doesn't matter if the report is out or not ... we're talking about it here, not hanging people.

Exactly. We all have our biases on CP, but that shouldn't stifle discussion. Whether OlingRoachinen knows it or not, he is biased towards siding with the police based on what he's read/seen (perfect example is making sure to keep mentioning that the guy was trouble), others are biased towards this being unjustified based on what they've read/heard.

Both are fine, but I agree with you that OlingRoachinen's posts come off a little more "stop badmouthing the police" then the "Lets wait for the facts" that he's claiming.

[combustiblefuel]

Here's a story about another incident in Ferguson to put context about the the history of abuse of the Furguson police . This man was just guilty of being black.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...loody-lie.html

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by nik-

What does it matter if we're not waiting for a report to be released to discuss it on an internet forum? It doesn't matter if the report is out or not ... we're talking about it here, not hanging people.

I think it is unclassy to go around calling someone racist and/or a murderer without really any evidence. I think it's stupid doing so when you know the investigation will shed a ton more light on the situation.

At this point though there's the usual suspects (not just on this website) yelling out "black gang member shot trying to kill officer, Murica!" and "racist pig kills and shoot innocent black teen" while closing their eyes and covering their ears to anything that might disprove their preconceived notion. The funny thing is both sides will want to use the innocent until proven guilty argument without giving the other side the benefit of the doubt. It's not so much a discussion as it is showing our biases.

Like it's been asked multiple times, what evidence would you need to change your view nik-? If the coroner's report comes back and it disproves the eyewitness statements then will you change your view or are you stuck on "cop is murderer" regardless of what happens?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Exactly. We all have our biases on CP, but that shouldn't stifle discussion. Whether OlingRoachinen knows it or not, he is biased towards siding with the police based on what he's read/seen (perfect example is making sure to keep mentioning that the guy was trouble), others are biased towards this being unjustified based on what they've read/heard.

Both are fine, but I agree with you that OlingRoachinen's posts come off a little more "stop badmouthing the police" then the "Lets wait for the facts" that he's claiming.

My initial response was to wait for facts. Period. I didn't mention anything else.

When it did become evident that Michael Brown as a violent criminal my feelings did change. The fact this man was a violent criminal has changed my view quite a bit. I still would want to wait for the facts, but to me something doesn't add up.

Either a cop decided it was okay to execute a man in broad daylight or a violent criminal who just committed a violent crime decided it was a good idea to go for the gun.

I will admit that I do have a bias against violent criminals, but I don't know if that has anything to do with the police. There's good and bad police. I don't know if there's good and bad violent criminals. (But being a criminal does not mean you deserve to die, and I will continue to say that).

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It could collaborate the story, giving huge support of the eye witnesses account. It might not be able to tell the exact story, but it will be able to say if the eye witnesses reports are plausible. On the other hand it could disprove them completely - i.e. not shot in the back, not shot from a distance, etc.

Again, why not just wait for it to be released? It just seems so odd that people will jump to conclusions time after time when we know the real evidence comes out in the following investigations and trials. Yet people jumped on the "police execute 6'4'' gentle giant" and are sticking to that story regardless. Especially when the whole gentle giant thing has already been disproven.

The family is also seeking a second party to examine the remains as well.


People are jumping to conclusions because it happens so often with no repercussions.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Shrugging it off as a municipal affair is pretty odd.

Local police killed an innocent kid, resulting in people stealing and breaking some stuff.

Why does that get equal if not higher billing from Obam's than what they've been cooking in Iraq? It's not like this is the 1960's and this is some watershed moment in race relations, he does like to photobomb these type of events a lot lately, it must be the legacy theme he's going for as he won't be known for anything else.

He's either trying to direct attention away from real news or he's has no sense of what's important. I'm not saying that just because there is big shyte going on in Iraqistan that nothing else can be discussed but seriously the guy spent one half (4 minutes) of his address on what will be known as a minor skirmish in the not too distant future (a month from now).

He needs to lay the smack down on rioters instead of beating around the bush and giving them a free pass. The guy is just the most flaccid ineffective president there's been for a long time. I think he was a good novelty president for one term but the fact the Republicans couldn't get their crap together to put up a half decent candidate to flush this limp pencil neck turd is just pathetic and I hate the Republicans.

[nik-]

Multiple important things can exist at the same time. The President can address a massive domestic story without completely abandoning foreign policy thought.

What a ridiculously Fox News post.

[Clarkey]

At least Obam's wifey will call a spade a spade and lay the 'take responsibility' smack down on people.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nik-

Multiple important things can exist at the same time. The President can address a massive domestic story without completely abandoning foreign policy thought.

What a ridiculously Fox News post.

That post was cringe-worthy lol. I read it in Bill O'Riley's voice.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

At least Obam's wifey will call a spade a spade and lay the 'take responsibility' smack down on people.

[combustiblefuel]

I think we need to take out the whole robbery angle out of talking about this incident.

The cop didn't even know he was a suspect. This is the way I'm looking at it. They had days to release this info. If jlthey wanted to justify this reason they would have released it right away. It might have lessened the riots had there been a lawful reason to stop Mike Brown.

I realize it sets up character profile of Mike Brown in trial but that's not why it led to 10 bullets riddiling his body.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I think we need to take out the whole robbery angle out of talking about this incident.

The cop didn't even know he was a suspect. This is the way I'm looking at it. They had days to release this info. If jlthey wanted to justify this reason they would have released it right away. It might have lessened the riots had there been a lawful reason to stop Mike Brown.

I realize it sets up character profile of Mike Brown in trial but that's not why it led to 10 bullets riddiling his body.

Why? I realize character assassination isn't always the best course of action but this was immediately before the incident and could say a lot more about Michael Brown's character and state of mind.

It wasn't like Michael Brown avoided taxes 15 years ago or had an unpaid parking ticket. What it does show is he wasn't in the greatest state of mind at the time. You just got caught committed stealing cigars. You assaulted the cashier to make room to leave the store. What's 'normal' criminal behaviour in this situation? Running out of the store, laying low and trying to come up with an alibi maybe? If you think the police would care enough about a couple cigars. That would be what I say is normal.

Instead Michael Brown decides instead of leaving the store quickly to go back and intimidate and threaten the cashier before leaving. Once out of the store he decides he should walk in the middle of the street and draw attention to himself. When the cop comes, according to his friend, instead of simply getting off the street he told the officer about "almost being home." His state of mind just doesn't make sense to the casual observer, something isn't adding up. Hopefully evidence will be able to tell a better story, but if there is a reason to speculate on this incident the fact that Michael Brown thought it was okay to get involved with the police after a violent crime does seem like a spot to speculate.

And besides, you don't want to bring up Michael Brown's actions but are continually posting incidents about the Ferguson State Police as proof that this individual shot Michael Brown, in your words, for being black misread post. At best that is massively hypocritical.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Why? I realize character assassination isn't always the best course of action but this was immediately before the incident and could say a lot more about Michael Brown's character and state of mind.

It wasn't like Michael Brown avoided taxes 15 years ago or had an unpaid parking ticket. What it does show is he wasn't in the greatest state of mind at the time. You just got caught committed stealing cigars. You assaulted the cashier to make room to leave the store. What's 'normal' criminal behaviour in this situation? Running out of the store, laying low and trying to come up with an alibi maybe? If you think the police would care enough about a couple cigars. That would be what I say is normal.

Instead Michael Brown decides instead of leaving the store quickly to go back and intimidate and threaten the cashier before leaving. Once out of the store he decides he should walk in the middle of the street and draw attention to himself. When the cop comes, according to his friend, instead of simply getting off the street he told the officer about "almost being home." His state of mind just doesn't make sense to the casual observer, something isn't adding up. Hopefully evidence will be able to tell a better story, but if there is a reason to speculate on this incident the fact that Michael Brown thought it was okay to get involved with the police after a violent crime does seem like a spot to speculate.

And besides, you don't want to bring up Michael Brown's actions but are continually posting incidents about the Ferguson State Police as proof that this individual shot Michael Brown, in your words, for being black. At best that is massively hypocritical.

When did I say they shot Mike brown for being Black? Where have I said . They shot him because he was Black. Also I have acknowledged the actions earlier in the thread of Mike Brown.

Instead of just being apologist you should read my comments.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

When did I say they shot Mike brown for being Black? Also I have acknowledged the actions of Mike Brown.

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Here's a story about another incident in Ferguson to put context about the the history of abuse of the Furguson police . This man was just guilty of being black.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...loody-lie.html

Seems pretty obvious? What am I missing?

Edit: Oh sorry, you meant the guy in the article. Okay sorry. Still you're bringing up previous actions of police that may not be at all relevant to the actual officer outside of being in the same town to paint the entire police force as corrupt but don't want to bring up Michael Brown's actions 10 minutes before the incident? Hypocritical. Either look at just the actual incident, the 3 minutes of exchange of which we have little information or start talking about racial issues, previous police incidents, and previous actions by the individuals involved. But by bringing up previous police incidents, which I agree paint a bad picture of the towns police force, you're not doing anything different then those bringing up Michael Brown's robbery, except that Michael Brown's robbery involved Michael Brown and we aren't sure if any of the corruption stories about Ferguson Police Force have to do with Wilson.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Seems pretty obvious? What am I missing?

Edit: Oh sorry, you meant the guy in the article. Okay sorry. Still you're bringing up previous actions of police that may not be at all relevant to the actual officer outside of being in the same town to paint the entire police force as corrupt but don't want to bring up Michael Brown's actions 10 minutes before the incident. Hypocritical.

Past actions inform speculation on current events.

[combustiblefuel]

I did mention that Henry Davis received abuse because he was a black man with the same name as a criminal.


I have actually been posting about both sides of this incident.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by nik-

Past actions inform speculation on current events.

I agree. But that goes both ways. It was combustiblefuel who said the violent crime that Michael Brown committed 10 minutes before the incident should not be discussed.

But nik-, I'm not trying to bait you or anything like that. I have said multiple times if the eye witnesses reports are collaborated with the coroner's report and the FBI investigation shows some damning evidence it will be hard to defend the officer's actions. Shooting an unarmed man in the back and when he's turned around with his arms up surrendering is murder, nothing could excuse the actions of the officer if that was the case.

But if the coroner's report and investigation come back differently what will it take for you to say that the officer was innocent? Just curious. There's people, heck people in this thread, who had already came to the conclusion that the officer was a murderer and will not change their view. Seems odd that the question gets avoided.

[TheJoeGreene]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I think we need to take out the whole robbery angle out of talking about this incident.

A 6'4" 290 adult who had just committed a robbery was stopped by a police officer. One side is saying the adult did nothing and was gunned down in cold blood, the other is saying the adult attacked the cop, tried to take his gun, and the cop shot him as he felt he was in imminent danger. The robbery supports the possibility that, even though the cop didn't know he was the robber, Mr. Brown may have thought he was being stopped for the robbery and decided to try and attack then run to stay out of jail. It's entirely relevant to the police side of the story so far.

[combustiblefuel]

Double post

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by TheJoeGreene

A 6'4" 290 adult who had just committed a robbery was stopped by a police officer. One side is saying the adult did nothing and was gunned down in cold blood, the other is saying the adult attacked the cop, tried to take his gun, and the cop shot him as he felt he was in imminent danger. The robbery supports the possibility that, even though the cop didn't know he was the robber, Mr. Brown may have thought he was being stopped for the robbery and decided to try and attack then run to stay out of jail. It's entirely relevant to the police side of the story so far.

I understand that. I even said it will be used within a trail. If we are going to speculate tho we should stick to the incident that lead to the death.

It does go both ways but they have not confirmed it was Mike Brown on tape. When they with out a reasonable doubt do then the Robbery angle has a foot to stand on.