What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Browns skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the familys request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I honestly don't know from the autopsy diagram. I'm no Quincy, but it looks to me like a couple of the shots are to what I would call the "inside" of the upper arm. I don't know what that means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html
Interesting. Not the side of the arm I would've considered the front. trajectories is probably the most important thing here. I'm not skilled enough in reading the chart to determine that.
Yeah, I just can't imagine how you get shot in that spot of the upper arm.
I can at certain angles. If the bullet was basically sliding along the forearm (for the lack of a better description) and entered there it makes sense. If it's head on like it would have exited exactly opposite on the other side, that imo is only explainable if he was shot with his arms up.

 
I can at certain angles. If the bullet was basically sliding along the forearm (for the lack of a better description) and entered there it makes sense. If it's head on like it would have exited exactly opposite on the other side, that imo is only explainable if he was shot with his arms up.
:lol:

Okay this has to be shtick at this point...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can at certain angles. If the bullet was basically sliding along the forearm (for the lack of a better description) and entered there it makes sense. If it's head on like it would have exited exactly opposite on the other side, that imo is only explainable if he was shot with his arms up.
:lol:

Okay this has to be shtick at this point...
Not at all. As I said in the previous post, it's all about trajectories. Some trajectories are going to strengthen the officer's case. Other's are gonna strengthen the witnesses' statements about his hands being in the air. Just seeing where the bullet hit on the arms could go either way.

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
Interesting take. Nobody to blame for an unjustified shooting and post-incident bungling (to put it mildly- I'd call it purposeful misleading of the public and the press by those sworn to serve them, but hey, tomato/tomahto)?

See, I'd blame the people who made mistakes and did the "bungling". But I guess that's just me, with my silly ideas about accountability.
if you want to regard errors with the same moral outrage as you would deliberate intent, that's up to you. Bit I wouldn't do it.
A single error can perhaps be dismissed. At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.

 
Now I'm confused...again. The autopsy shows he was shot from the front. It doesn't make clear how far away he was.

this is starting to remind me so much of the Zimmerman story. Witnesses with conflicting accounts. and once again opinion seems divided among partisan lines, with many conservatives believing the shooting was justified, and many liberals sure it was murder.

I have a feeling that, just like in Zimmerman, we will probably never know what really happened.
no traces of gunpowder rules out close range. the guy charged the police and got lit up
There was no gunpowder residue on the body which suggested it was close range. The forensics expert said he did not review the dead man's clothes, so couldn't rule out there was not residue. I don't see how the lack of gunpowder suggests he charged the police. If anything it goes against this - unless you're just being facetious.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?

 
Now I'm confused...again. The autopsy shows he was shot from the front. It doesn't make clear how far away he was.

this is starting to remind me so much of the Zimmerman story. Witnesses with conflicting accounts. and once again opinion seems divided among partisan lines, with many conservatives believing the shooting was justified, and many liberals sure it was murder.

I have a feeling that, just like in Zimmerman, we will probably never know what really happened.
no traces of gunpowder rules out close range. the guy charged the police and got lit up
There was no gunpowder residue on the body which suggested it was close range. The forensics expert said he did not review the dead man's clothes, so couldn't rule out there was not residue. I don't see how the lack of gunpowder suggests he charged the police. If anything it goes against this - unless you're just being facetious.

 
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.
The discussion is weather or not the shooting was justified. Doesn't everyone agree that weather it is justified or not, responding by rioting is not justified?
I think the weather was pretty good when Brown was shot, so visibility should not have been a factor.
:cool: There goes big media not keeping their focus on the actual problem.
I take it you don't think instant militarization of the police and tear gassing reporters to be a problem?

I'm trying to not be insensitive to the Michael Brown shooting, but that will get sorted out in its time. It irks me that attention has been diverted from something I perceive to be a much worse systemic problem. Might just be a poor viewpoint/perspective on my part.
I think the sooner good information comes out on the shooting the quicker the riots will disperse, or should if this is truly a reaction of the shooting. But I doubt it really was.

I don't know enough about the protocols on dealing with riots to comment on the police reaction to riots. However, it does appear to me that the local police were not prepared to deal with the riots.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.

 
One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Browns skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the familys request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I honestly don't know from the autopsy diagram. I'm no Quincy, but it looks to me like a couple of the shots are to what I would call the "inside" of the upper arm. I don't know what that means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html
Interesting. Not the side of the arm I would've considered the front. trajectories is probably the most important thing here. I'm not skilled enough in reading the chart to determine that.
Yeah, I just can't imagine how you get shot in that spot of the upper arm.
You're right, as an attorney you can't imagine any other possibility. Running towards him and being shot would never allow for his arms to be hit where they were in any manner other than him surrendering and hands in the air. Even though people were heard saying Brown was running at the cop. Or wait, was he running away?

 
I finally listened to this now. You really need to fast forward to the 6 minute mark for the applicable part, but he really does lay down exactly why the cop was possibly (probably?) justified in shooting Brown. It's inconsequential what the officer knew about the earlier robbery or even why he stopped Brown initially, assuming he had a reason to stop him, but when that man says, "and he (Brown) kept coming at him (the cop)" (paraphrasing here) there really isn't much else to this story for me.

I've just realized I was confused about who what police chief has been talking to the media.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right, as an attorney you can't imagine any other possibility. Running towards him and being shot would never allow for his arms to be hit where they were in any manner other than him surrendering and hands in the air. Even though people were heard saying Brown was running at the cop. Or wait, was he running away?
They said he was running away but now must change their story since the evidence proves otherwise.

 
I'm glad the template the police use to show bullet entry and exit wounds uses a guy who is a grower and not a shower. Makes me feel better about myself.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
Blaming the police for rioting and looting? Interesting take.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
Blaming the police for rioting and looting? Interesting take.
The actions the police took definitely escalated the situation. That's not even up for debate.

 
Is that Michael Brown pictured with the gun and cash, looking ready to mix Hawaiian-Punch & a fifth of liquor?

Man this is so sad. This thread and this country is going in like at least 5-10 different places:

  • Looting
  • 1st Amendment rights
  • Militarization of police
  • The problem the black citizenry of this country has in either embracing their own or distancing themselves from their own
  • Single parenthood
  • Gun violence
  • Poverty
  • The lack of trust between many poor black communities and the police and their own elected government
  • The effect of political apathy on the quality of local government
  • Unprofessional reporting by the media
  • Amateur forensics
  • Cognitive bias
Right now this thing is looking like a mash-up of Rodney King and Travon Martin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
Blaming the police for rioting and looting? Interesting take.
The professional looters get a free pass too, its inconvenient to travel to another state for free stuff....lol

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Are you serious? This guy just was in a physical confrontation with the officer in the car. The guy takes off and then comes rushing back (lets assume this is the case - it has not been substantiated yet). If the guy shot was 6'4" 290 lbs as described, if I was that cop I'd be a shootin' too.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
Blaming the police for rioting and looting? Interesting take.
:coffee:

 
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace.
I'm not sure I follow. Would you elaborate on your point?
That they should've kept letting people believe Brown was a just a sweet ol' kid with no criminal history at all.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Are you serious? This guy just was in a physical confrontation with the officer in the car. The guy takes off and then comes rushing back (lets assume this is the case - it has not been substantiated yet). If the guy shot was 6'4" 290 lbs as described, if I was that cop I'd be a shootin' too.
I like how people think that "non-lethal" threats are so soft and fuzzy. People get beat to death all of the time. Or end up in the hospital in comas from fights. How many times in the past year have we read about refs who were punched and died from their injuries?

People choosing to take an ### whooping instead of defending themselves is funny. :lol:

 
CNN breaking:

Private autopsy shows U.S. teen Michael Brown shot at least six times, including twice in head, says family's attorney.
We already knew he got shot. The fact that they're not leading with news that he got shot from the back seems telling IMO.
Exactly. That report leads with a lot of drama about the number of times he got shot, etc.... then, almost as a footnote, they casually drop the most compelling evidence that essentially invalidates the entire "he was just harmlessly running away from the police" angle.

And if his arms were up, per the witnesses and the latest meme, Wouldn't the bullets have entered the back of his arms? (assuming were in agreement that top of forearm counts as front, under forearm is back.)
The same witness (who has obviously reason to be biased in his report) who says the was running away, when off camera witnesses and autopsy reports indicate he actually was charging the police? I'd love to hear how someone who was running away was shot in the top of the head. My neck sure bends much better forward than backward.

Pardon me if I don't discount the testimony of the best friend of the deceased. A good buddy of mine was driving through an area of Memphis that is predominantly black when he was broadsided by a black woman who ran a red light. He got out of the car unharmed (Thankfully) and was looking around for witnesses, and nobody appeared to be around (it was about 1am).

However, once the police were on the scene, dozens of "witnesses" had come out of the woodwork claiming my friend was the one who ran the red light and they all "saw it clear as day". Why? A chance to stick it to a white boy. This crap happens a lot in neighborhoods like this, and I've got no doubt we're seeing some of that same effect in formal police statements.
I beleive they said that he was giving himself up. If he held his hands up and subjugated himself by leaning forward (as one would do who was giving themselves up), he could also be shot in the top of the head - this was in the autopsy report as a prospective result of the top of head shot. There was more than just the friend as a witness. There was also a woman who said she saw what happened. She indicated he was shot at while he was running away from the cop. Not sure if she said he was hit in the back or not which would discredit her testimony too. This still eneds to flesh out some more.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
My take on your post is: the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They stood by the first night of rioting and looting and did nothing, and it was chaos.

Since then, they have tried to stop it, yet it's still their fault?

That's ####### rich.

 
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace.
I'm not sure I follow. Would you elaborate on your point?
That they should've kept letting people believe Brown was a just a sweet ol' kid with no criminal history at all.
When you call a press conference to announce the shooter's name (something that should have been done days before), you have two reasonable choices: (1) announce the shooters' name, apologize for the delay, maybe explain it, and be done with it: (2) announce the shooter's name and all other information pertinent to the shooting. They chose instead to release the name and then no other information about the shooting other than the fact that the victim was a suspect in a crime earlier that day. Later it came out that the robbery wasn't even why he was initially stopped- something they chose to conceal at that time.

I think that's awful It makes it abundantly clear to me that the police are more interested in winning a PR battle than serving the people. If you don't find that press conference disgraceful and don't see how it fueled the uptick in violence associated with the protests, then you and I just see things differently.. Not much else I can say.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace.
I'm not sure I follow. Would you elaborate on your point?
That they should've kept letting people believe Brown was a just a sweet ol' kid with no criminal history at all.
When you call a press conference to announce the shooter's name, you have two reasonable choices: (1) announce the shooters' name and be done with it: (2) announce the shooter's name and all other information pertinent to the shooting. They chose instead to release the name and then no other information about the shooting other than the fact that the victim was a suspect in a crime earlier that day. Later it came out that the robbery wasn't even why he was initially stopped.

I think that's awful It makes it abundantly clear to me that the police are more interested in winning a PR battle than serving the people. If you don't find that press conference disgraceful and don't see how it fueled the uptick in violence associated with the protests, then you and I just see things differently.. Not much else I can say.
Man, a female cop just shot someone in the head here in NO last week (I have no idea how he survived). It took the NOPD two days to even admit they had done it, and they only did because someone reported it to the media.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
My take on your post is: the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They stood by the first night of rioting and looting and did nothing, and it was chaos.

Since then, they have tried to stop it, yet it's still their fault?

That's ####### rich.
This is not a proper reaction to American citizens

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1393696/mike-brown.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
My take on your post is: the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They stood by the first night of rioting and looting and did nothing, and it was chaos.

Since then, they have tried to stop it, yet it's still their fault?

That's ####### rich.
Things seemed to calm down when the Highway Patrol took over, but they took heat when they used tear gas to get to people who had been shot. They then backed down to the point of basically watching the looters loot which obviously didn't go over well with store owners.

The only real solution is for people to stop looting, but I don't see that happening.

I definitely don't see how the police are to blame for the continued looting.

 
Was Brown really 6'4", 290 lbs.? He was 290?
yes he was a fat dude
How old was he?
18
Has anyone seen a picture of the cop?

CNN showed a video (post shooting) of the cop and another cop near the body after the shooting. He looked like an older guy with white hair. Any details on him? He looked like an older guy to me.
don't know how old this picture is:

http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Darren-Wilson.jpg

 
You can get on the cops for the timing of the video release, but to say that the video isn't relative is hogwash.

If Brown's character is going to be built up, "college student, gentle giant" there's no reason why "criminal, strong-arm robber" shouldn't also come into play.

 
At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
My take on your post is: the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They stood by the first night of rioting and looting and did nothing, and it was chaos.

Since then, they have tried to stop it, yet it's still their fault?

That's ####### rich.
This is not a proper reaction to American citizens

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1393696/mike-brown.jpg
Yup. Based on every account I've heard, the "first night of rioting and looting" was a mostly quiet protest with a few unfortunate incidents. Most post-championship sports rioting seem ten times worse. The response was so wildly out of proportion that it turned into the first act of escalation by the cops; something they've done several times since then with their militarization as explained well by Rand Paul, their treatment of the media (suggesting they had something to hide in addition to being a blatant denial of Constitutional rights), the ridiculous victim-blaming announcement, and so on. I have no idea they've somehow earned the benefit of the doubt with posters here after all that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was Brown really 6'4", 290 lbs.? He was 290?
yes he was a fat dude
How old was he?
18
Has anyone seen a picture of the cop?

CNN showed a video (post shooting) of the cop and another cop near the body after the shooting. He looked like an older guy with white hair. Any details on him? He looked like an older guy to me.
don't know how old this picture is:

http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Darren-Wilson.jpg
I stand corrected, he looks like a younger guy than I thought, that looks like fair/blond hair.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/18/newday-intv-ferguson-shooting-crenshaw.cnn.html

 
You can get on the cops for the timing of the video release, but to say that the video isn't relative is hogwash.

If Brown's character is going to be built up, "college student, gentle giant" there's no reason why "criminal, strong-arm robber" shouldn't also come into play.
It's all public record.

 
Was Brown really 6'4", 290 lbs.? He was 290?
yes he was a fat dude
How old was he?
18
Has anyone seen a picture of the cop?

CNN showed a video (post shooting) of the cop and another cop near the body after the shooting. He looked like an older guy with white hair. Any details on him? He looked like an older guy to me.
don't know how old this picture is:

http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Darren-Wilson.jpg
I stand corrected, he looks like a younger guy than I thought, that looks like fair/blond hair.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/18/newday-intv-ferguson-shooting-crenshaw.cnn.html
Cop's age is in the thread, believe it is 28. No service record blemishes.

 
Was Brown really 6'4", 290 lbs.? He was 290?
yes he was a fat dude
How old was he?
18
Has anyone seen a picture of the cop?

CNN showed a video (post shooting) of the cop and another cop near the body after the shooting. He looked like an older guy with white hair. Any details on him? He looked like an older guy to me.
Did someone break into Saints' account and is posting under his name? How do you not know this stuff if you lead the thread in posts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was Brown really 6'4", 290 lbs.? He was 290?
yes he was a fat dude
How old was he?
18
Has anyone seen a picture of the cop?

CNN showed a video (post shooting) of the cop and another cop near the body after the shooting. He looked like an older guy with white hair. Any details on him? He looked like an older guy to me.
don't know how old this picture is:

http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Darren-Wilson.jpg
I stand corrected, he looks like a younger guy than I thought, that looks like fair/blond hair.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/18/newday-intv-ferguson-shooting-crenshaw.cnn.html
There was some information earlier on his work experience that would have put his age as late 20's, early 30's I believe.

 
You can get on the cops for the timing of the video release, but to say that the video isn't relative is hogwash.

If Brown's character is going to be built up, "college student, gentle giant" there's no reason why "criminal, strong-arm robber" shouldn't also come into play.
This right here is the problem exactly. Your mindset seems to be police vs. community. "They made him sound like a great guy so the police have a right to say otherwise."

You see the problem with that, right?

 
So we know everyone who said he was shot in the back basically made that story up.

Everyone who said the guy had his hands up and was being shot were wrong because there would be entry wounds on the back of the arms if his arms were raised over his head.

It looks more and more like a panicked officer shooting a charging suspect at least looking at that spray pattern of bullets.
Brown could have been shot at from behind and not hit , then turned around and was hit

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top