FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I know enough from seeing that video. That wasn't the first time he's stolen something and wasn't the first time he's bullied someone.

Which video? The full one? Or the one the police edited to make it look much worse?

Originally Posted by illinifan999

You can keep calling him unarmed, but the fists of a 6'4, 300 lb adult can still do serious damage.

He was unarmed. End of story, you can't spin it any other way without sounding absurd. This isn't in dispute at all. It's hard for a fist to do damage from more than 3 feet away.

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Real life isn't like the movies. People can be shot multiple times and continue on with adrenaline. The fact that he was still bullrushing someone shooting at him until he was hit in the head is proof.

He was bullrushing the police officer? And I'm sure you have proof of that? Because every other eyewitness account - including that of the PD - says the hulking beast-child was running away and then stopped.

Originally Posted by illinifan999

There's been a blatant attempt to influence everyone (including a potential jury pool) by assassinating Officer Wilson's character. Difference between Officer Wilson and Michael Brown is that Officer Wilson has been trying to serve his community while Michael Brown sees fit to steal from it.

I haven't seen an institutionalized attempt at assassinating Wilson's character. Please show me where that took place.

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Actually you're wrong. 6'4, 300 lbs adult attacking a smaller cop, already bashing his head good enough to send him to the hospital, and trying to take his gun = deadly force authorized. Especially if he's gearing up for round 2.

Again, you have proof of any of this beyond a police department statement? A department that's already been caught in numerous lies regarding this case - everything from the number of shots fired to the distance between the subjects to heavily editing the video from the convenience store to denying firing on the media?

I'm just curious, how many lies have to get told by a man in uniform before you don't believe them? At this point I figure the police spokesperson must look like this:



What we know is this - a young, unarmed black male was shot 6 times at range by a while police officer who was chasing him after an initial confrontation regarding jaywalking. Those facts are undisputed. I'm leaving room for the police to justify it. I just doubt they can. After all, this is the same department that arrested an innocent man, beat him savagely in his cell and then tried to charge him with bleeding on their uniforms.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I'm not really sure what eavesdropping and spying has anything to do with this. Unless the cop had just been following him around with the express purpose of waiting for him to do something so he could shoot him.

I was using it as an example to illustrate my disagreement with the tenet that if you aren't doing anything wrong you really shouldn't mind authoritarial overstep.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

So that happened to you once. Imagine if that situation became a regular occurrence. You are so damn myopic (not just in this case, but just about everything you post about) it isn't even funny.

I have the ability to reduce the chance it happens based on my behavior. If I commit a crime, there's no wiggle room there at all.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

My point was that he never would have acted the way he did if he hadn't committed a robbery and wasn't on drugs. If he's a kid walking down the street sober and with nothing to hide (regardless of whether the cop knows that), the scenario would have been a complete 180 and likely not ended in his death.

You have absolutely no clue that's the case and making that assertion is ludicrous. You really do need to check your privilege on this one Mizzou.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You have absolutely no clue that's the case and making that assertion is ludicrous. You really do need to check your privilege on this one Mizzou.

Which is why I made my original statement.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Subby

I was using it as an example to illustrate my disagreement with the tenet that if you aren't doing anything wrong you really shouldn't mind authoritarial overstep.

But your example seems to be the extreme opposite to this case. I don't know that's its authoritarial overstep for a cop to drive down a street and tell someone to stop walking in the street as he passes them. That's pretty much the entire point of jaywalking laws.

[jeff061]

I haven't seen an institutionalized attempt at assassinating Wilson's character. Please show me where that took place.

This, I was actually anticipating that to happen. If anything releasing his identity has humanized him(to positive effect) and I haven't seen anything damaging come from his past. It probably would have benefited the PD if they had released his name much earlier.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Logan

Which is why I made my original statement.

To which I agree.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Which video? The full one? Or the one the police edited to make it look much worse?

I'm not sure about this at all. I thought the full video was far more damning. The edited video basically just showed the shoving incident in the entry of the building. The full video clearly showed by his actions that his crime was premeditated. He checked out the area around the cash register more than once with his friend. Only after two different looks around the cash register did he lunge for the merchandise and then had the confrontation with the sales clerk in the entry.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

After all, this is the same department that arrested an innocent man, beat him savagely in his cell and then tried to charge him with bleeding on their uniforms.

You left out the fact that they perjured themselves (multiple officers) in that instance too. So they're pretty much full-of-shit all around AFAIC until proven otherwise.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Which video? The full one? Or the one the police edited to make it look much worse?

You mean this one? You're right, I see that happen every day.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

He was unarmed. End of story, you can't spin it any other way without sounding absurd. This isn't in dispute at all. It's hard for a fist to do damage from more than 3 feet away.

"If" you believe the police reports, he was well within 3 feet at the beginning of the confrontation.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

He was bullrushing the police officer? And I'm sure you have proof of that? Because every other eyewitness account - including that of the PD - says the hulking beast-child was running away and then stopped.

See the video posted on the previous page of an "alleged" witness video saying he turned around and started running at the cop.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I haven't seen an institutionalized attempt at assassinating Wilson's character. Please show me where that took place.



Again, you have proof of any of this beyond a police department statement? A department that's already been caught in numerous lies regarding this case - everything from the number of shots fired to the distance between the subjects to heavily editing the video from the convenience store to denying firing on the media?

I'm just curious, how many lies have to get told by a man in uniform before you don't believe them? At this point I figure the police spokesperson must look like this:



What we know is this - a young, unarmed black male was shot 6 times at range by a while police officer who was chasing him after an initial confrontation regarding jaywalking. Those facts are undisputed. I'm leaving room for the police to justify it. I just doubt they can. After all, this is the same department that arrested an innocent man, beat him savagely in his cell and then tried to charge him with bleeding on their uniforms.

At what point can we stop referring to his age? At 18 he could be overseas fighting a war. I would say at some point referring to his size would be more useful than his age.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure about this at all. I thought the full video was far more damning. The edited video basically just showed the shoving incident in the entry of the building. The full video clearly showed by his actions that his crime was premeditated. He checked out the area around the cash register more than once with his friend. Only after two different looks around the cash register did he lunge for the merchandise and then had the confrontation with the sales clerk in the entry.

A confrontation which, by the way, wasn't even reported by the clerk or the store, but by a customer in the store. Would they have bothered to get around to calling it in eventually or was it too minor? We'll never know.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You have absolutely no clue that's the case and making that assertion is ludicrous. You really do need to check your privilege on this one Mizzou.

I'm not sure why you continue to use the phrase 'check your privilege' in regards to my comments. Just because we may or may not be brought up in different backgrounds doesn't mean you have to speak down to me (or me to you). I certainly haven't been disrespectful to you despite disagreeing with some of your points. Debate the points of the discussion, not the background of the person making the points.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure why you continue to use the phrase 'check your privilege' in regards to my comments. Just because we may or may not be brought up in different backgrounds doesn't mean you have to speak down to me (or me to you). I certainly haven't been disrespectful to you despite disagreeing with some of your points. Debate the points of the discussion, not the background of the person making the points.

You have basically been saying that if the person who got shot acted exactly like you, then nothing bad would have happened. That isn't "debating the points".

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But your example seems to be the extreme opposite to this case. I don't know that's its authoritarial overstep for a cop to drive down a street and tell someone to stop walking in the street as he passes them. That's pretty much the entire point of jaywalking laws.

I was directly responding to MBBJ's example of the a-hole cop and that we have to be perfectly behaved to avoid getting harassed or tased or shot six times. It's bullshit. I didn't do such a great job explaining it. Sorry about that.

I do feel like there is a massive amount of victim blaming going on though. I guess we will never know for sure without the video. Although we had video of Rodney King getting brutalized and the cops were still acquitted in the criminal trial.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

A confrontation which, by the way, wasn't even reported by the clerk or the store, but by a customer in the store. Would they have bothered to get around to calling it in eventually or was it too minor? We'll never know.

The crime being reported/not reported doesn't change the mindset of the young man in the time immediately after it happened. He doesn't know if it was reported. He's clearly going to have a heightened sense of apprehension and the drugs in his system would only further cloud his judgment.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Hell, I've even been wrongly pulled over before when I didn't do anything wrong (I've heard this never happens to white people, but this cop in mid-Missouri didn't get the memo). Guy was a prick about the whole thing and threatened to take me to jail. I shut my mouth and let him be a jerk. That's how it works whether you like it or not. I made the decision to avoid confrontation. That's how it works sometimes, even when you're in the right.

No biggie...heck, the cop might have even brought you a burrito when you were in your jail cell.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Subby

I was directly responding to MBBJ's example of the a-hole cop and that we have to be perfectly behaved to avoid getting harassed or tased or shot six times. It's bullshit. I didn't do such a great job explaining it. Sorry about that.

Which is an extreme argument that I didn't make. Not breaking the law and being perfectly behaved are two totally different standards IMO.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The crime being reported/not reported doesn't change the mindset of the young man in the time immediately after it happened. He doesn't know if it was reported. He's clearly going to have a heightened sense of apprehension and the drugs in his system would only further cloud his judgment.

That's a fair point re: Brown's behavior- I thought you were using that to bolster the behavior of the police officer.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

"If" you believe the police reports, he was well within 3 feet at the beginning of the confrontation.

Have the police reports been released? If so, could you provide a link?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Subby

I was directly responding to MBBJ's example of the a-hole cop and that we have to be perfectly behaved to avoid getting harassed or tased or shot six times. It's bullshit. I didn't do such a great job explaining it. Sorry about that.

I do feel like there is a massive amount of victim blaming going on though. I guess we will never know for sure without the video. Although we had video of Rodney King getting brutalized and the cops were still acquitted in the criminal trial.

I agree to an extent with the victim blaming. Anyone who says he deserved to get shot for robbing a store and/or getting high is dumb. But only the extreme fringe are arguing that as a logical outcome. Of course he shouldn't have been shot even one time, but I don't know how combining bits of information is outside the realm of trying to figure out how it came to be that he was in that situation.

The cops can now show the following: he was in an altered state of mind due to the marijuana, how altered is completely unknown. He quite recently committed a mildly violent crime, how much that was still in his mind at the time of his interaction with the cop is unknown. In no logical world would these things lead to someone getting shot by a police officer. By the store clerk, maybe... but not a cop, but...

"If" you believe the police reporting that he initiated a physical confrontation with the cop by attempting to take his gun, then I can see why the cop would use deadly force in that situation.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by digamma

Have the police reports been released? If so, could you provide a link?

Sorry, I should have said "reporting" in that instance. I do believe the police have reported that an altercation occurred, but a report was not issued. I thought about that while typing, but just couldn't think of a better word to use at the moment.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's a fair point re: Brown's behavior- I thought you were using that to bolster the behavior of the police officer.

No. I'm strictly speaking about Mr. Brown and what he could have done to avoid this situation through his own behavior. I think we have a pretty good picture of what Mr. Brown did wrong leading up to the point where the officer and Mr. Brown crossed paths for one reason or another.

I'm not arguing the guilt/innocence of the police officer (yet). As I mentioned a couple pages back, I think it will be some time before we get the full picture of the situation. There's a chance that both parties may have acted inappropriately in the situation. And as we know, acting inappropriately by either party still does not clear the other of wrong-doing necessarily. There's just not enough clear information to pass judgment on the ending portion of this incident.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure why you continue to use the phrase 'check your privilege' in regards to my comments. Just because we may or may not be brought up in different backgrounds doesn't mean you have to speak down to me (or me to you). I certainly haven't been disrespectful to you despite disagreeing with some of your points. Debate the points of the discussion, not the background of the person making the points.

Mizzou, let me answer this and try not to take this as an insult. You won't like what I have to say, but I hope you consider that what I'm saying is not meant to be mean, but meant to show you how you are being received and how misguided your opinion is.

You seem to be making assumptions based on your past experiences with police forces without regard to what the experience is really like. Yet interactions with the police in poor and minority communities often isn't positive. Many people in such communities feel under siege, harassed, targeted and picked on. Interactions with the police aren't pleasant or polite from either side. Minorities are often under-represented and this feels much like being targeted by white cops. As such, your statements about how Michael Brown should have reacted are ludicrous assertions based on your experiences with the police without regard to the many negative experiences those in poor and/or minority communities deal with on an ongoing basis.


Let's start with a few facts. The Ferguson PD is overwhelmingly white in a community where 67% of the residents are black and 30% white. Yet only 3 out of 53 officers are black. A white person is 4 times less likely to be pulled over by the police (not overall, on an individual basis). Search rates against blacks is much higher, even though the hit rate is actually higher on whites. There's a huge racial gulf in who is on the force and how people are policed. In short, this kind of community is the worst for incidents that get rolled up into something commonly called "driving while black".

To provide an example, do you think the cop that snarled "bring it, you fucking animals! Bring it!" to the protesters the other night (it's on tape) is an isolated incident? Can you justify that? That kind of stuff happens all the time, it's just not on video and/or nobody cares because it's happening to another "black thug" or because it doesn't result in a shooting/chokehold/beatdown. But when you're on the end of that kind of interaction on an ongoing basis, it's going to greatly influence your actions and reactions to the police. Now the converse could be argued, but it's the cops that have the vast majority of the guns, power and responsibility.

You're making assumptions on how police encounters "should" go, without ever considering how many negative police encounters a young black male has in a community like this by the time he's 18. So no, if you're a young black man or if you have any idea what police interactions are like in a community like that, you do not make the assertion that nothing would have happened if he wasn't high or didn't "rob" a convenience store (that wasn't even reported by the store!). It's ludicrous. It's wrong. And it's bigoted. In short, you're being quite bigoted even without realizing it. Now I don't consider you to be a bigot, but in this case I think you're so far off base you're now saying bigoted things. That's where "check your privilege" comes into play. It's a nice way of saying "you're saying bigoted and/or incorrect things because you really don't understand what it's like". If you really think what you're saying is correct, then you don't know what it's like and perhaps should refrain from making such statements because it's insulting to those who do know what it's like in such communities.

I haven't made the claim that the shooting wasn't justified. I am making the claim that it's going to be very, very difficult to justify shooting an unarmed black man at range for any reason after stopping him for jaywalking and that this unfortunately happens all too often by cops. And even if this guy was charging at the cop and you accept their entire version of the events, under proper escalation of force protocol he still should not have been shot. Furthermore, I'm pointing out the inconsistencies/lies in their own statements and their how their reaction to the protests/looting show how truly fucked up that law enforcement community really is. As it is, I don't know how anyone could accept their version of events given what they've already lied about.

Again, I don't consider you to be bigoted and I think you're a good guy. I just think you're passing judgement and making some very poor assumptions here without regard to what a young poor minority goes though when dealing with the cops.

---

I'm lucky in that I've seen both sides of it - both good police departments and bad. It's amazing how leadership can change the nature and attitude of a force. I remember one force that was pretty cool and known for working within their communities. Then a new Sheriff was elected, he came in with fatigues and thought he was the second coming of Buford Pusser. His guys got decked out in cammos and started carrying assault rifles. Within two years, that was the worst department I had to deal with. Community complaints rose drastically and I would cringe while these guys were bragging about their "no knock" warrants and massive mistreatment of suspects. Ever seen a naked guy chained spread-eagle to the bars for at least 8 hours straight (the entire time I was onsite)? Yeah, I got to listen to his cries of pain as his muscles cramped up and had to walk past him after he pissed on himself. Too bad that wasn't an isolated case in that department...or others. Ever hear a cop brag about ripping off the ear of an inmate? Or forcing a guy to have a laxative and putting him into a punishment chair (it's a very uncomfortable chair designed to bring on muscle spasms and stuff like that) for 4 hours (which was the max), standing him up and then making him sit in it for another 4 hours? Yeah, not very fun. Yet in other departments, the cops were nice, interactions always polite (no swearing) - it all comes from top down.

In a good force, the guy above who said "bring it, you fucking animals! Bring it" would be busted down the very next day. In Ferguson, it seems just like just another day.

[cuervo72]

Has anyone linked this story yet? If not I think it's a nice example for MBBF.

After A Traffic Stop, Teen Was 'Almost Another Dead Black Male' : NPR

(eta: If it had already been linked, then read it again.)

[thesloppy]

It seems worth noting that (as far as I know) a blood toxicology test will report marijuana "in the system" anywhere from two days up to two weeks after usage. Marijuana is notoriously hard to test for accurate time-of-use, because it hangs around in the body(fat) much longer than most other drugs.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

It seems worth noting that (as far as I know) a blood toxicology test will report marijuana "in the system" anywhere from two days up to two weeks after usage. Marijuana is notoriously hard to test for accurate time-of-use, because it hangs around in the body(fat) much longer than most other drugs.

There's video of him stealing Swisher Sweets from the convenience store... I don't need a toxicology report to tell me he enjoyed smoking marijuana.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Has anyone linked this story yet? If not I think it's a nice example for MBBF.

After A Traffic Stop, Teen Was 'Almost Another Dead Black Male' : NPR

(eta: If it had already been linked, then read it again.)

And note that the officers were not prosecuted for that.

[cuervo72]

Yep - dismissed for unrelated incidents. But probably not prosecuted for those, either.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And note that the officers were not prosecuted for that.

We really need to start prosecuting cops more and not just firing them.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yep - dismissed for unrelated incidents. But probably not prosecuted for those, either.

Nope, they were dismissed for lying on police reports. Won't get prosecuted for that!

[molson]

Don't judge all police officers, or even an particular one, by the actions of others. That's not fair to do for any group, profession, race, whatever. When it comes to criminal charges it's not just an issue of fairness, it's about constitutional rights too (edit: as in, people commenting on this don't have worry about that angle, but those conducting the investigation certainly do, and I think understanding that is important to understanding the process here). The officer in this case had nothing to do with some traffic stop in Denver. We don't even know that he had anything to do with other activities of the Ferguson police department you take issue with. A lot of people here lecturing others about assumptions when they've been making their own assumptions throughout the thread, both about this individual officer, and officers generally.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Subby

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes being able to fuck up and not get fatally shot six times because of it.

I wonder what the narrative would be had the kid gotten the cops gun and shot him.

You want to call the weed and robbery fucking up, I can buy that. No one deserves to die for that. But if the part about him going for the cops gun then coming back for more is true it becomes difficult to write that off as a kid fucking up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Mizzou, let me answer this and try not to take this as an insult. You won't like what I have to say, but I hope you consider that what I'm saying is not meant to be mean, but meant to show you how you are being received and how misguided your opinion is.

You seem to be making assumptions based on your past experiences with police forces without regard to what the experience is really like. Yet interactions with the police in poor and minority communities often isn't positive. Many people in such communities feel under siege, harassed, targeted and picked on. Interactions with the police aren't pleasant or polite from either side. Minorities are often under-represented and this feels much like being targeted by white cops. As such, your statements about how Michael Brown should have reacted are ludicrous assertions based on your experiences with the police without regard to the many negative experiences those in poor and/or minority communities deal with on an ongoing basis.


Let's start with a few facts. The Ferguson PD is overwhelmingly white in a community where 67% of the residents are black and 30% white. Yet only 3 out of 53 officers are black. A white person is 4 times less likely to be pulled over by the police (not overall, on an individual basis). Search rates against blacks is much higher, even though the hit rate is actually higher on whites. There's a huge racial gulf in who is on the force and how people are policed. In short, this kind of community is the worst for incidents that get rolled up into something commonly called "driving while black".

To provide an example, do you think the cop that snarled "bring it, you fucking animals! Bring it!" to the protesters the other night (it's on tape) is an isolated incident? Can you justify that? That kind of stuff happens all the time, it's just not on video and/or nobody cares because it's happening to another "black thug" or because it doesn't result in a shooting/chokehold/beatdown. But when you're on the end of that kind of interaction on an ongoing basis, it's going to greatly influence your actions and reactions to the police. Now the converse could be argued, but it's the cops that have the vast majority of the guns, power and responsibility.

You're making assumptions on how police encounters "should" go, without ever considering how many negative police encounters a young black male has in a community like this by the time he's 18. So no, if you're a young black man or if you have any idea what police interactions are like in a community like that, you do not make the assertion that nothing would have happened if he wasn't high or didn't "rob" a convenience store (that wasn't even reported by the store!). It's ludicrous. It's wrong. And it's bigoted. In short, you're being quite bigoted even without realizing it. Now I don't consider you to be a bigot, but in this case I think you're so far off base you're now saying bigoted things. That's where "check your privilege" comes into play. It's a nice way of saying "you're saying bigoted and/or incorrect things because you really don't understand what it's like". If you really think what you're saying is correct, then you don't know what it's like and perhaps should refrain from making such statements because it's insulting to those who do know what it's like in such communities.

I haven't made the claim that the shooting wasn't justified. I am making the claim that it's going to be very, very difficult to justify shooting an unarmed black man at range for any reason after stopping him for jaywalking and that this unfortunately happens all too often by cops. And even if this guy was charging at the cop and you accept their entire version of the events, under proper escalation of force protocol he still should not have been shot. Furthermore, I'm pointing out the inconsistencies/lies in their own statements and their how their reaction to the protests/looting show how truly fucked up that law enforcement community really is. As it is, I don't know how anyone could accept their version of events given what they've already lied about.

Again, I don't consider you to be bigoted and I think you're a good guy. I just think you're passing judgement and making some very poor assumptions here without regard to what a young poor minority goes though when dealing with the cops.

---

I'm lucky in that I've seen both sides of it - both good police departments and bad. It's amazing how leadership can change the nature and attitude of a force. I remember one force that was pretty cool and known for working within their communities. Then a new Sheriff was elected, he came in with fatigues and thought he was the second coming of Buford Pusser. His guys got decked out in cammos and started carrying assault rifles. Within two years, that was the worst department I had to deal with. Community complaints rose drastically and I would cringe while these guys were bragging about their "no knock" warrants and massive mistreatment of suspects. Ever seen a naked guy chained spread-eagle to the bars for at least 8 hours straight (the entire time I was onsite)? Yeah, I got to listen to his cries of pain as his muscles cramped up and had to walk past him after he pissed on himself. Too bad that wasn't an isolated case in that department...or others. Ever hear a cop brag about ripping off the ear of an inmate? Or forcing a guy to have a laxative and putting him into a punishment chair (it's a very uncomfortable chair designed to bring on muscle spasms and stuff like that) for 4 hours (which was the max), standing him up and then making him sit in it for another 4 hours? Yeah, not very fun. Yet in other departments, the cops were nice, interactions always polite (no swearing) - it all comes from top down.

In a good force, the guy above who said "bring it, you fucking animals! Bring it" would be busted down the very next day. In Ferguson, it seems just like just another day.

I'm still trying to figure out how I've said any of this is acceptable. I don't see any of that behavior as OK. With that said, if we're going to give Mr. Brown the benefit of the doubt in the final incident despite the fact that he clearly was doing multiple illegal things leading up to that, I think we also should give Officer Wilson similar benefit of the doubt even if there are a good portion of officers in that city who may carry bias, hatred, or not follow the rules of conduct for police.

[chadritt]

i mustve missed it, where is the part about him "coming back for more"?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You have absolutely no clue that's the case and making that assertion is ludicrous. You really do need to check your privilege on this one Mizzou.

To be fair no one really knows what "the case" is. Everyone is operating under assumption along with personal experiences and biases to form a right or wrong opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Don't judge all police officers, or even an particular one, by the actions of others. That's not fair to do for any group, profession, race, whatever. When it comes to criminal charges it's not just an issue of fairness, it's about constitutional rights too (edit: as in, people commenting on this don't have worry about that angle, but those conducting the investigation certainly do, and I think understanding that is important to understanding the process here). The officer in this case had nothing to do with some traffic stop in Denver. We don't even know that he had anything to do with other activities of the Ferguson police department you take issue with. A lot of people here lecturing others about assumptions when they've been making their own assumptions throughout the thread, both about this individual officer, and officers generally.

If the department enables this type of behavior (the excessive use of force/perjury) then the burden absolutely is on it to disprove the assumption that it's rotten.

Certainly from a PR standpoint if not from a strictly legalese standpoint.

[Buccaneer]

NobodyHere, tell exactly that to the police union.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Don't judge all police officers, or even an particular one, by the actions of others. That's not fair to do for any group, profession, race, whatever. When it comes to criminal charges it's not just an issue of fairness, it's about constitutional rights too. The officer in this case had nothing to do with some traffic stop in Denver. We don't even know that he had anything to do with other activities of the Ferguson police department you take issue with. A lot of people here lecturing others about assumptions when they've been making their own assumptions throughout the thread, both about this individual officer, and officers generally.

I don't believe you are correct Molson. The assumptions aren't being made about individual officers. They're being made about the system that allows, sometimes encourages and protects police officers at the expense of the public at general and specifically poor and minority communities.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cartman

You have basically been saying that if the person who got shot acted exactly like you, then nothing bad would have happened. That isn't "debating the points".

Doesn't mean he is incorrect.

I am confident in saying had the kid acted like me, or you, or Subby, nothing bad would have happened to him.

doesn't justify the shooting, but it isn't an incorrect statement.

You can spin it as victim blaming all you want, but stating had the kid acted differently that day he would be alive is correct. If you believe some of the reports. Had the kid not chosen to beat up a cop and try and steal his gun ( allegedly) he is alive today.

Does it justify anything that happened afterwards, who knows until the facts come out, if they do, but had he not engaged in an activity that set off that chain of events he would certainly be alive.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I wonder what the narrative would be had the kid gotten the cops gun and shot him.

You want to call the weed and robbery fucking up, I can buy that. No one deserves to die for that. But if the part about him going for the cops gun then coming back for more is true it becomes difficult to write that off as a kid fucking up.

I doubt many would disagree with your last sentence. Whether that actually happened of course, we likely will never know.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by chadritt

i mustve missed it, where is the part about him "coming back for more"?

There are 2 reports from sources completely unrelated that state the kid was running, then turned around and charged the cop, who then opened fire.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Logan

I doubt many would disagree with your last sentence.

I'm not sure I agree.

Many seem quick to say Kid didn't have a gun= shouldn't have been shot.

[nol]

Originally Posted by chadritt

i mustve missed it, where is the part about him "coming back for more"?

The autopsy showed a bullet wound through the top of his skull, which could be interpreted as Darren Wilson shooting a down/surrendering Brown for the sixth time, or that Brown, by virtue of being black, 300 pounds, and having smoked marijuana at some point in the 24 hours prior to his death, is not a human being but a rhinoceros that puts his head down and charges at someone who has already shot him four times. You can guess who's on what side.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Logan

I doubt many would disagree with your last sentence. Whether that actually happened of course, we likely will never know.

And if that's the case, as awful as it seems, they're screwed when it comes to getting a guilty verdict so they likely won't even prosecute.

One of the things that I find interesting in the whole thing is the number of witnesses who are saying that he had his arms up and somehow, we're supposed to discredit those witnesses because they would be bias towards the cop in this instance. Would we do the same thing to their accounts if they were white? It's as if their accounts just don't matter because they would be biased. Even if that's true, what does that say about our society? Doesn't that tell us all that something is wrong with how we're doing things?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm still trying to figure out how I've said any of this is acceptable. I don't see any of that behavior as OK. With that said, if we're going to give Mr. Brown the benefit of the doubt in the final incident despite the fact that he clearly was doing multiple illegal things leading up to that, I think we also should give Officer Wilson similar benefit of the doubt even if there are a good portion of officers in that city who may carry bias, hatred, or not follow the rules of conduct for police.

Nope, that's not what you said. What you said is this:

"If he never robbed the store and didn't get high on an illegal drug, he would have been in a totally different frame of mind and this never would have happened. It really is that simple."

"As for the law, it really is that simple. Smoking drugs is illegal. Stealing is illegal. Aggression towards an authority figure is illegal. If this kid does none of the above, there's no way a Ferguson police officer shoots him."

First of all, you have no idea whether he did anything illegal beyond jaywalking nor if he was under the influence at the time of death. The officer in question certainly didn't. Secondly, there have been many cases of deaths where cops overreacted and shot unarmed suspects and many more beatings and assaults, so making those statements are ludicrous. Tell that to Eric Gardner. Sean Bell. Ramarley Graham. Tell that to Oscar Grant. Ever had plain-clothed cops jump out of a vehicle at night with guns drawn and start shouting things like "don't move motherfucker"? Do you know how you'd act? A good friend of mine was almost shot because his first reaction was to give these armed muggers his wallet so he didn't get killed. So that's what he reached for...luckily the gun was only cocked and held to his head and they didn't pull the trigger. But almost...or as they told him, "almost...fucker". You think your shorts would be clean after an encounter like that?

I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am questioning the need to shoot an unarmed black male, at range in the middle of the street in broad daylight under any circumstances, especially given that this is not proper in the escalation of use of force that all departments have. I'm questioning how a simple jaywalking stop somehow escalates into 6 shots fired at range. I'm questioning how a suspect gets in a tussle over an officers' gun if that officer is still in the car. I'm also questioning the lies told by the police department and their attempt at character assassination. I'm also questioning their reaction to the protest marches/looting with them trying to instigate things with protesters, firing rubber bullets and tear gas at the media, pointing sniper rifles from the tops of trucks at civilians and running around with assault weapons drawn and pointed at people like a poorly trained paramilitary force.

If that's the way the force is run, then why wouldn't Wilson gunning down an unarmed black man be such a stretch?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm not sure I agree.

Many seem quick to say Kid didn't have a gun= shouldn't have been shot.

This is one part I'm not understanding. That kid was huge. The idea he couldn't kill you by beating you up is nuts. If the officer is even 200 pounds, it's going to be a hell of an issue. Just because somebody doesn't have a gun doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing serious, serious harm.

I feel bad for everyone involved all the way down the line. Just a bizarre intersection of two peoples lives where they, and those around the situation, will never be the same and all because of an amazing set of circumstances that all somehow went the way they did to produce the outcome we have.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I don't believe you are correct Molson. The assumptions aren't being made about individual officers. They're being made about the system that allows, sometimes encourages and protects police officers at the expense of the public at general and specifically poor and minority communities.

You don't think people are making assumptions about this officer - and not just his actions, but his thought-process, racial attitudes, etc.?

I have a ton of disagreements with the way things are done in these various criminal justice systems. I wouldn't want to be judged just because I'm part of that system though. Plenty of individual officers have disagreements with those systems too. When people start collecting lists of bad things police officers have done across the country, that seems to me to be going into that direction of judging everyone by the actions of these other people. We wouldn't do that for most other professions, even though we could make similar lists involving them.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

This is one part I'm not understanding. That kid was huge. The idea he couldn't kill you by beating you up is nuts. If the officer is even 200 pounds, it's going to be a hell of an issue. Just because somebody doesn't have a gun doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing serious, serious harm.

The main parts of the story that seem to be agreed upon are that the officer was inside the car when he called Brown over to talk to him. One story has Brown trying to force his way into the car, the other has the officer pulling him into the car. Brown may or may not have been trying to get the officer's gun at this point. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that Brown did not take the officer's gun out of the car. If the officer was alone, at what point in the decision process did it seem like a good idea to get out of the car, with no backup called? That seems to go counter to any LEO training I have been a part of.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

First of all, you have no idea whether he did anything illegal beyond jaywalking nor if he was under the influence at the time of death. The officer in question certainly didn't. Secondly, there have been many cases of deaths where cops overreacted and shot unarmed suspects and many more beatings and assaults, so making those statements are ludicrous.

I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am questioning the need to shoot an unarmed black male, at range in the middle of the street in broad daylight under any circumstances, especially given that this is not proper in the escalation of use of force that all departments have. I'm also questioning the lies told by the police department and their attempt at character assassination. I'm also questioning their reaction to the protest marches/looting with them trying to instigate things with protesters, firing rubber bullets and tear gas at the media, pointing sniper rifles from the tops of trucks at civilians and running around with assault weapons drawn and pointed at people like a poorly trained paramilitary force.

If that's the way the force is run, then why wouldn't Wilson gunning down an unarmed black man be such a stretch?

I'm not sure what the exact escalation is. It sounds like you're in the know in that regard, so I'll defer to you on that.

With that said, IF a 6'4", 300 lb. person who you have an altercation with and then pursue turns around and charges you, I have a hard time putting myself in a position to judge you if you choose to use lethal force in that instance. If he doesn't use lethal force in that instance, that cop is going to end up hurt very badly if not killed. Putting myself in that situation, I'd definitely fear for my life.

If the kid just threw his hands up and was shot down, of course it's wrong.