Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[troutman]

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

fair enough reason!
part 2 - why couldnt mace have been used?

Again, I side more with the cop than I do Mike Brown after looking at facts but I don't like the prosecutor and question some of what happened.

Deploying OC spray while partially inside the patrol car, if he had it, would incapacitate him as well (possibly worse depending on Brown's location). Use of his baton was limited by the space inside the car.

Since he felt that his life was in jeopardy after having his door slammed back into him and struck in the face by Brown, he attempted to order Brown to retreat at gunpoint. After Brown grabbed his gun and attempted to gain control of it, his only option at that point was to use lethal force.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Unfortunately, I am often reminded that humility is a quality in short supply these days. Why do so many believe that they know so much, with zero experience and "evidence" provided only by the media? Baffling.

This is exactly why the Prosecutor chose to release the transcripts, which I can assure you is something that almost never happens in grand jury proceedings. The real evidence is there. At least rational folks can understand the decision rendered by 12 people who met 23 times to digest that evidence. The rest of the world wants to make up reasons that something happened and will happily ignore the real evidence and replace it with history or antecdotes of which they have absolutely zero first hand knowledge.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

fair enough reason!
part 2 - why couldnt mace have been used?

Again, I side more with the cop than I do Mike Brown after looking at facts but I don't like the prosecutor and question some of what happened.

Partially because it was inside the police car and could have incapacitated the officer more so or as well as Brown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...michael-brown/

Was mace an option? Wilson said he decided against it: “The chances of it being effective were slim to none. His hands were in front of his face, it would have blocked the mace from hitting him in the face.” What about his Taser? Wilson wasn’t carrying one. “It is not the most comfortable thing,” he said. “They are very large; I don’t have a lot of room in the front for it to be positioned.”

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The media is also to blame for hyping everything every time a police shooting and it happens to involve a minority. You don't hear about the police shooting white people.

Police shoot white people?

[rubecube]

National Bar Association has now come out and expressed shock at the lack of an indictment.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

National Bar Association has now come out and expressed shock at the lack of an indictment.

Good. The entire case was handled backwards.

The problem in this case is the gross misuse of the grand jury process by the prosecution team to subvert justice and whitewash the cop who killed the unarmed man.

The prosecution did not present a case for indictment. This is what they always do, unless the accused is a cop. Instead, the prosecution presented a case against indictment. The opposite of what they are supposed to do. And this was done in secret, with the well-coordinated leaks to the media during the elongated process, and the document dump at the close. So the idiots in the press would be hard pressed to define a grand jury to bloviate on air and further cloud the issue.

This is as bad a perversion of the actual nuts and bolts of the judicial system as I have ever seen or read about. A prosecutor sole job is to represent the victim of a crime, as well as the public. Here, he was a defender of a cop who shot and killed an unarmed man physically separated from him by at least 100 feet; while prosecuting the victim.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by rubecube

National Bar Association has now come out and expressed shock at the lack of an indictment.

I'm shocked that the National Bar Association (not to be confused with the American Bar Association) is shocked.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Unfortunately, I am often reminded that humility is a quality in short supply these days. Why do so many believe that they know so much, with zero experience and "evidence" provided only by the media? Baffling.

This is exactly why the Prosecutor chose to release the transcripts, which I can assure you is something that almost never happens in grand jury proceedings. The real evidence is there. At least rational folks can understand the decision rendered by 12 people who met 23 times to digest that evidence. The rest of the world wants to make up reasons that something happened and will happily ignore the real evidence and replace it with history or antecdotes of which they have absolutely zero first hand knowledge.

It comes from a general dissatisfaction with government and distrust of their decisions. Not saying I condone their actions but what we are seeing transcends just Brown. People are unhappy with their society, culture and government. Ignoring the overall societal context is shortsighted.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Deploying OC spray while partially inside the patrol car, if he had it, would incapacitate him as well (possibly worse depending on Brown's location). Use of his baton was limited by the space inside the car.

Since he felt that his life was in jeopardy after having his door slammed back into him and struck in the face by Brown, he attempted to order Brown to retreat at gunpoint. After Brown grabbed his gun and attempted to gain control of it, his only option at that point was to use lethal force.

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Partially because it was inside the police car and could have incapacitated the officer more so or as well as Brown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...michael-brown/

I am referring to when the officer felt the need to put the final shots in the head of the victim after he was already shot.... at this point they were about 10 feet away from each other and not in the vehicle.

As for the "this is why they released all the information" when they rarely do .... why were so many things handled differently in this case compared to others. Is the prosecutor not supposed to sift through and give basic evidence to the jury for them to decide on "probable cause"? The more evidence that was handed over was actually to benefit the officer.

** I am adding this to each post so you can understand , I am on the side of the cop and understand the severity of their job (especially in certain areas of the US) / split second decisions they need to make. I just question some of the practices in the case in general for future cases moving forward.

[Azure]

Well regardless of what the decision was by the grand jury it sure doesn't justify the riots.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well regardless of what the decision was by the grand jury it sure doesn't justify the riots.

What, in your mind, is justification for a riot?

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well regardless of what the decision was by the grand jury it sure doesn't justify the riots.

Agree 100% and it is too bad as the Brown family was very pro "peaceful protest" and then the step dad gets on a podium and yells to the crowd to "burn this mother *&(*^& down" over and over.

It is unfortunate as I believe the riots would have happened anyways but now the step dad will have fingers pointed at him.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What, in your mind, is justification for a riot?

Nothing ?

They have had (for the most part) peaceful protests for nearly 100 days which have garnered plenty of attention. A riot deflects from what they are trying to bring attention to.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I'm shocked that the National Bar Association (not to be confused with the American Bar Association) is shocked.

What is the difference between the two?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Agree 100% and it is too bad as the Brown family was very pro "peaceful protest" and then the step dad gets on a podium and yells to the crowd to "burn this mother *&(*^& down" over and over.

It is unfortunate as I believe the riots would have happened anyways but now the step dad will have fingers pointed at him.

Yeah, I saw that this morning and shook my head, I also saw some video where I think it was the mother and she was really whipping up the raw emotions of the crowd.

At the end of the day the biggest harm was done to that community as none of those businesses will be in a rush to go back there. One poor lady stood there and watched the autoparts store that she worked at burned down.

the Brown family was hurt and it could be argued destroyed by this whole episode, but there were a lot of innocents hurt last night for no other reason then that they were there.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What, in your mind, is justification for a riot?

Certainly not this incident. They can assemble peacefully, but the riot works against them. A cycle of violence perpetuated by an outburst of more violence.

What happened to being better than those that wrong you?

And yes, I realize that the US has a huge problem with their treatment of black people and other minorities. They do have a War on Black People Drugs afterall.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Certainly not this incident. They can assemble peacefully, but the riot works against them. A cycle of violence perpetuated by an outburst of more violence.

What happened to being better than those that wrong you?

And yes, I realize that the US has a huge problem with their treatment of black people and other minorities. They do have a War on Black People Drugs afterall.

I'm just curious, because I'm not sure what justifies a riot either.

But certainly, at some point, something must justify a riot or violence, right?

What's that point? Is rioting as a result of a single incident less or more justifiable than a riot as a result of years of repressed anger over a variety of incidents?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm just curious, because I'm not sure what justifies a riot either.

But certainly, at some point, something must justify a riot or violence, right?

What's that point? Is rioting as a result of a single incident less or more justifiable than a riot as a result of years of repressed anger over a variety of incidents?

Nothing, nothing justifies rioting.

Rioting creates more problems, ill will and only distances those that you wish to influence.

But that is my opinion.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Azure

Certainly not this incident. They can assemble peacefully, but the riot works against them. A cycle of violence perpetuated by an outburst of more violence.

What happened to being better than those that wrong you?

And yes, I realize that the US has a huge problem with their treatment of black people and other minorities. They do have a War on Black People Drugs afterall.

There is a tipping point though and those people just can't take it anymore. They clearly believe that Brown was only shot because he was black. Heck even if he was Latino or Asian let alone White he wouldn't have been shot that many times. And then for the prosecutor to just sweep it under the rug. There needs to be a strong reaction.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Nothing, nothing justifies rioting.

Rioting creates more problems, ill will and only distances those that you wish to influence.

But that is my opinion.

What other options are there? Peaceful protesting isn't going to get CNN there.