Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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.

Was it even mentioned on the dispatch recordings? Because I legitimately couldn't find any reference to it. So in terms of it being a factor in this, I'm pretty damn skeptical. Why did it take days for this robbery information to be released if that's what the cop was responding to? If it legitimately was the reason the cop was interacting with them, that would have immediately been relayed. They wouldn't hold back such an important piece of information that would shine a more positive light on their side. The kid obviously wasn't an angel, but this smells like character assassination after the fact.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

It does go both ways but they have not confirmed it was Mike Brown on tape.

Just to be clear, they have. I don't know if the police have or if they are just waiting for the investigation/trial but the friend of Michael Brown and his attorney have. There's no question about it at this point.

[jayswin]

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 misread post. At best that is massively hypocritical.

Great, but you're speculating just as much as the other side. We're all doing it, it's a discussion forum and we have no effect on the case.

The issue people are having with you is you're very oddly calling out those that are speculating that the cop was in the wrong, and saying it's unfair to accuse the cop without all the facts and calling posters hypocrites, while speculating about Michael Brown and creating your own narrative of how you think it went down at the same time.

You're doing exactly what everyone else is doing, to even more of an extreme than everyone else, as at least those accusing the police officer of not being justified are going off eye witness accounts.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by nik-

Was it even mentioned on the dispatch recordings? Because I legitimately couldn't find any reference to it. So in terms of it being a factor in this, I'm pretty damn skeptical. Why did it take days for this robbery information to be released if that's what the cop was responding to? If it legitimately was the reason the cop was interacting with them, that would have immediately been relayed. They wouldn't hold back such an important piece of information that would shine a more positive light on their side. The kid obviously wasn't an angel, but this smells like character assassination after the fact.

From my understanding the officer was just responding to the robbery when he saw Michael Brown being disrupted in the streets. He was not aware that this was the man who had just robbed the store. It's murky as sometimes the story gets told differently.

So again, from the last thing I read the officer didn't know about Michael Brown and the robbery. But it's about Michael Brown's state of mind here. He did just commit a robbery and he decided the first thing to do was run out in the middle of the street and draw attention to himself. When a cop shows up, what else was he willing to do that many would not see as normal? Go for the gun?

[nik-]

Assuming he assaulted a store clerk and stole a pack of cigars, that's a pretty large leap to going for a cop's gun. Lets not pretend that it's a "state of mind" switch that just went off. Because that's ridiculous. I actually find that you consider that realistic comical.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

From my understanding the officer was just responding to the robbery when he saw Michael Brown being disrupted in the streets. He was not aware that this was the man who had just robbed the store. It's murky as sometimes the story gets told differently.

So again, from the last thing I read the officer didn't know about Michael Brown and the robbery. But it's about Michael Brown's state of mind here. He did just commit a robbery and he decided the first thing to do was run out in the middle of the street and draw attention to himself. When a cop shows up, what else was he willing to do that many would not see as normal? Go for the gun?

Who knows, right? If you're going to tell others not to speculate about the cop's actions then it would make sense that you wouldn't, either, or else you'd be a hypocrite, correct?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nik-

Assuming he assaulted a store clerk and stole a pack of cigars, that's a pretty large leap to going for a cop's gun. Lets not pretend that it's a "state of mind" switch that just went off. Because that's ridiculous. I actually find that you consider that realistic comical.

I don't think he even sees how much of a hypocrite he's being, it's hilarious actually. His comments and speculation would be totally fine if he wasn't on a crusade to call out everyone who's questioning the cop's actions and telling them to wait for the facts.

"Stop assassinating the cop's character and speculating on what happened, you people need to wait for the facts to come out! Anyways, on an unrelated note, here's my character assassination on Michael Brown and speculation based on what I know so far."

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

From my understanding the officer was just responding to the robbery when he saw Michael Brown being disrupted in the streets. He was not aware that this was the man who had just robbed the store. It's murky as sometimes the story gets told differently.

So again, from the last thing I read the officer didn't know about Michael Brown and the robbery. But it's about Michael Brown's state of mind here. He did just commit a robbery and he decided the first thing to do was run out in the middle of the street and draw attention to himself. When a cop shows up, what else was he willing to do that many would not see as normal? Go for the gun?

The fact of the matter is whether or not he grab for the gun . This indicates he did not have a weapon. When he was shot he was unarmed. He was shot 30 plus feet away . He stopped threw his hands up which is a universal sign of surrender.

The cop could have stayed his distance gun drawn and backup arrived less then a minute after the discharge of his weapon.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Great, but you're speculating just as much as the other side. We're all doing it, it's a discussion forum and we have no effect on the case.

The issue people are having with you is you're very oddly calling out those that are speculating that the cop was in the wrong, and saying it's unfair to accuse the cop without all the facts and calling posters hypocrites, while speculating about Michael Brown and creating your own narrative of how you think it went down at the same time.

Everything in bold is you doing exactly what everyone else is doing, to even more of an extreme than everyone else, as at least those accusing the police officer of not being justified are going off eye witness accounts.

There's a difference. I have not said that Michael Brown deserved to die. I have not said Michael Brown went for the gun. I have said that what he did was abnormal and confusing behaviour. I have also said, probably more so, that if evidence points to the fact that eye witness reports are accurate that the officer committed murder.

On the other hand there have been people in this thread, people who may not be discussing it any more, that have stated explicitly that it was cut and dry murder like this:

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

We have enough information to know that the police murdered this teen who had his hands up in surrender.

My argument in any case like this, one way or the other, will be innocent until proven guilty. Michael Brown was not proven guilty. Unfortunately that wont bring him back to life. I'm not trying to attack him I feel bad he is dead and especially if he was 'innocent.' Anyone who says that he deserved to die or he 100% went for the gun, I will disagree with. At least until more solid evidence is produced.

On the other hand, the officer has also not been proven guilty either. Anyone who says he executed a man (especially because of his race), I will also disagree with. At least until more solid evidence is produced.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

The fact of the matter is whether or not he grab for the gun . This indicates he did not have a weapon. When he was shot he was unarmed. He was shot 30 plus feet away . He stopped threw his hands up which is a universal sign of surrender.

Do you have proof of this?

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

There's a difference. I have not said that Michael Brown deserved to die. I have not said Michael Brown went for the gun. I have said that what he did was abnormal and confusing behaviour. I have also said, probably more so, that if evidence points to the fact that eye witness reports are accurate that the officer committed murder.

On the other hand there have been people in this thread, people who may not be discussing it any more, that have stated explicitly that it was cut and dry murder like this:


My argument in any case like this, one way or the other, will be innocent until proven guilty. Michael Brown was not proven guilty. Unfortunately that wont bring him back to life. I'm not trying to attack him I feel bad he is dead and especially if he was 'innocent.' Anyone who says that he deserved to die or he 100% went for the gun, I will disagree with. At least until more solid evidence is produced.

On the other hand, the officer has also not been proven guilty either. Anyone who says he executed a man (especially because of his race), I will also disagree with. At least until more solid evidence is produced.

Your speculating as much as anyone else. Pot meet kettle.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Do you have proof of this?

The cops have admitted the distance he was shot at. They also have admitted he was running away. His friend has admitted he bolted. And the evidence tat one shot was fired inside the vehicle.

So if he fleed and shots were fired aren't going to hit him in the front of his chest.

[Oling_Roachinen]

nik-, flameswin, combustiblefuel, I have said multiple times that if the officer shot him from a distance in the back or with his hands up the officer committed murder and there's no defending him. If that was the case.

So what would it take you to say the cop was innocent? Evidence he went for the gun? Evidence he wasn't shot in the back? Evidence there was a struggle between the police and the officer and he was shot close range? Evidence that the gun went off in the car and not 20 feet away from the vehicle? What is it?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

The cops have admitted the distance he was shot at. They also have admitted he was running away. His friend has admitted he bolted. And the evidence tat one shot was fired inside the vehicle.

So if he fleed and shots were fired aren't going to hit him in the front of his chest.

They have admitted that he was 30 feet away when he collapsed, not that he was shot 30 feet away.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

nik-, flameswin, combustiblefuel, I have said multiple times that if the officer shot him from a distance in the back or with his hands up the officer committed murder and there's no defending him. If that was the case.

So what would it take you to say the cop was innocent? Evidence he went for the gun? Evidence he wasn't shot in the back? Evidence there was a struggle between the police and the officer and he was shot close range? Evidence that the gun went off in the car and not 20 feet away from the vehicle? What is it?

The only evidence that he went for the gun would come from the cop. I'm not sure why I should believe that. No one else has corroborated the claim that he went for the gun. To me the word that is most likely right now is the witness who wasn't Michael Brown's friend who said he was running when he was first shot, first in the back then in the front.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by nik-

The only evidence that he went for the gun would come from the cop. I'm not sure why I should believe that. No one else has corroborated the claim that he went for the gun. To me the word that is most likely right now is the witness who wasn't Michael Brown's friend who said he was running when he was first shot, first in the back then in the front.

Okay, fair enough. So you're saying that if there isn't evidence he was shot in the back you will say the cop is innocent (or let's say more accurately not guilty) then?

[nik-]

No, I'm not saying that, you're saying that.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, I'm not saying that.

Ha, so what are you saying? I'm just asking you for the evidence that would be required to say "not guilty" would be a fair verdict if it goes to trial.

What is it? There has to be something and I'm just asking you to set the bar for yourself? If there is nothing, then you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty?

I mean there's a likelihood that all this is moot and Michael Brown's autopsy will show he was shot in the back at a distance of 40 feet. In which case people will call me out for "defending" the officer. But I'm just trying to get a feel for what, if anything, would change peoples minds about the situation.

[nik-]

Oh I have no doubts he'll be found not guilty. If there's no shots in the back, then yeah, there's something off. But I'm going on the statements of two unrelated eye witnesses (on top of his friend) that he was first shot in the back.

[TheJoeGreene]

Originally Posted by nik-

Assuming he assaulted a store clerk and stole a pack of cigars, that's a pretty large leap to going for a cop's gun. Lets not pretend that it's a "state of mind" switch that just went off. Because that's ridiculous. I actually find that you consider that realistic comical.

As someone who worked training exercises for everyone from local police agencies up to the US Capitol Police, Secret Service, DEA, DIA, and Joint Counter Intelligence Training Academy, and has read a million case profiles, I'll say without hesitation that it's absolutely not a leap at all.