Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[Doug B]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

I'm glad that you guys have it all figured out. It's almost as if you witnessed it. I guess they must have been running backwards for Mr. Brown to get shot in the front.

I think you might be reading too much into this.

Perhaps.

 

[Jim11]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

Bingo.

makes the most sense. We'll know more after the second autopsy. But the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me. It's possible, but very improbable. And the eagerness of some people to instantly believe this is very telling.

especially if shots were fired before he turned around and "charged".

I don't have any research, training or education to back this up BUT:

People don't usually charge at people that are shooting at them.

Maybe it was all that pot in his system?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

 

[Doug B]

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

The hyperbole is not necessary. You've misinterpreted both my point and Tim's.

My point is this: in the confusion of the moment, a simple 180-degree turn might have been enough to elicit the gun shots. Further, if it could somehow be conclusively established that that's EXACTLY how it went down, I think Wilson shouldn't go to trial at all.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids to get out of the road, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, Kid attacks officer resulting in cop getting orbital fracture, kids run...

I was with ya till the bolded. Had to clean up some of the prior stuff too.

(just showing the other side of the bias coin here)

Could be exactly how it happened. Brown might have clocked the officer as he sat in his car. Would not shock me at all.

 

[[icon]]

Seems like civilized society at work here...

Video of the Quick Trip Riot / Looting

Nice work, citizens.

 

[lod01]

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

thats absolutely true. But yesterday Henry Ford, among others, suggested some plausible alternatives. I have to say that:1. It seems unlikely to me that Wilson fired at Brown's back as Brown was running away. (If the first autopsy is accurate, then this DID NOT HAPPEN.

2. It seems even MORE unlikely to me that Brown ran away, turned around, and started charging an armed policeman. This sounds like the made up defense of Wilson and/or his supporters. Unless somebody finds a way to prove it, I think it's bs.

So I'm thinking there has to be a 3rd alternative. Maybe the kid ran away, the cop fired and missed (or winged him in the arm), the kid turned around and put his hands up, the cop fired the rest of the shots. That would match the 3 witnesses close enough. Or maybe something else happened.

the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me.

So does the notion that he was running away. Were the cops firing those magical U turn bullets that go past the target, then turn around and enter the front side of a person who's running away?

Take a picture of your back with your webcam. What part of your arm is showing?

Gimme a break. Mr. Brown was shot it the chest & head...the FRONT of his head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/official-autopsy-michael-brown-had-marijuana-in-his-system-was-shot-6-times/2014/08/18/8c016ef8-26f4-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Brown, 18, had six gunshot wounds to the head and chest and was shot from the front

Additionally the shot that entered the top of his head was even slightly angled towards the front of his head. This could indicate that it was the very last shot and that the eye shot caused him to start falling forward.and this one entered the top of his head. of course, he was facing the officer when these shots were fired.

You guys really need to listen to the young guy that performed the autopsy.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Seems like civilized society at work here...

Video of the Quick Trip Riot / Looting

Nice work, citizens.

So, the bigger question here would be, if a deaf man hit one of them in the road, whose fault would it be?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Meanwhile, the cops don't seem particularly concerned with the looting. Two separate accounts from business owners here (click to read the full passages). The second one is particularly damning- the only action taken by the cops after the looting was to kick out the volunteers who came to the market the next day to help clean and make repairs.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

 

[timschochet]

Any police that used tear gas deliberately against journalists should not only be immediately fired, but charged with a felony and serve jail time.

When the media puts themselves that close to the front line, they become part of the protests, and thus should receive no special treatment. I am not saying whether or not tear gas should be used or not, but the media should receive no special treatment if they are gonna put themselves into the middle of it all.

Not sure you read what I wrote correctly. If the police fired tear gas at rioters, and if journalists just happened to be there in the middle and got caught up in it, then that's acceptable IMO, so I agree with you.

But it has been implied here that the police fired tear gas AT the journalists, that the journalists were their specific intended targets. If that's the case, it's unacceptable.

 

[sublimeone]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

Bingo.

makes the most sense. We'll know more after the second autopsy. But the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me. It's possible, but very improbable. And the eagerness of some people to instantly believe this is very telling.

especially if shots were fired before he turned around and "charged".

I don't have any research, training or education to back this up BUT:

People don't usually charge at people that are shooting at them.

Maybe it was all that pot in his system?

I don't have any research either but I've been in A LOT of gas stations and people don't usually reach behind the counter and strong arm employees for a box of blunts.

 

[lod01]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

At least you got something right. Show me evidence that this particular officer is a bad apple. List the accusations on the 6 year vet. Got any? Didn't think so.

 

[BigJohn]

Seems like civilized society at work here...

Video of the Quick Trip Riot / Looting

Nice work, citizens.

o/u of high school diplomas in that crowd = 7.5

 

[TobiasFunke]

Any police that used tear gas deliberately against journalists should not only be immediately fired, but charged with a felony and serve jail time.

When the media puts themselves that close to the front line, they become part of the protests, and thus should receive no special treatment. I am not saying whether or not tear gas should be used or not, but the media should receive no special treatment if they are gonna put themselves into the middle of it all.

Not sure you read what I wrote correctly. If the police fired tear gas at rioters, and if journalists just happened to be there in the middle and got caught up in it, then that's acceptable IMO, so I agree with you.

But it has been implied here that the police fired tear gas AT the journalists, that the journalists were their specific intended targets. If that's the case, it's unacceptable.

Implied? There's a video showing it. And in case you weren't convinced that the journalists were the target, the cops came in and took down their camera equipment after the journalists were cleared.

 

[sublimeone]

Seems like civilized society at work here...

Video of the Quick Trip Riot / Looting

Nice work, citizens.

Just goes to show... the rioters aren't interested in justice.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

Bingo.

makes the most sense. We'll know more after the second autopsy. But the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me. It's possible, but very improbable. And the eagerness of some people to instantly believe this is very telling.

especially if shots were fired before he turned around and "charged".

I don't have any research, training or education to back this up BUT:

People don't usually charge at people that are shooting at them.

Maybe it was all that pot in his system?

I don't have any research either but I've been in A LOT of gas stations and people don't usually reach behind the counter and strong arm employees for a box of blunts.

What if you are in a black neighborhood?

 

[Greggity]

Seems like civilized society at work here...

Video of the Quick Trip Riot / Looting

Nice work, citizens.

o/u of high school diplomas in that crowd = 7.5

Looks like a party!! We sure someone died a few days before?

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

Bingo.

makes the most sense. We'll know more after the second autopsy. But the notion of Brown charging an armed policeman seems like a real stretch to me. It's possible, but very improbable. And the eagerness of some people to instantly believe this is very telling.

especially if shots were fired before he turned around and "charged".

I don't have any research, training or education to back this up BUT:

People don't usually charge at people that are shooting at them.

Maybe it was all that pot in his system?

I don't have any research either but I've been in A LOT of gas stations and people don't usually reach behind the counter and strong arm employees for a box of blunts.

What if you are in a black neighborhood?

Maybe Brown accidentally dropped the cigars during the squad car scuffle and was charging to get them back. Seems plausible.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Seems like civilized society at work here...

Video of the Quick Trip Riot / Looting

Nice work, citizens.

Just goes to show... the rioters aren't interested in justice.

Oh, they would be, if there was a justice store in town.

 

[timschochet]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

This article is pretty good imo. Highlights some of the fundamental problems today's cops face:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/ferguson-guns-america-police-fear_b_5688750.html

The facts of the Brown shooting remain murky but the protests are motivated by a larger pattern: harassment of minorities by police. Communities of color know well that edgy cops and racial prejudice can be a dangerous brew. While inexcusable, racial stereotypes are predictably part of policing. Cops are taught to mistrust for self-protection, yet the vast majority of civilians they encounter are peaceful. It is little surprise that officers often fall back on racial or other stereotypes when faced with the difficult task of quickly determining who is a threat. Officers look for shortcuts to simplify high-pressure decisions. Such stereotypes are often misleading, reflecting the officer's biases especially in matters of race. They also endanger officers who lower their guard against people who don't fit the stereotypes and threaten civilians who do fit them.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

Did I say that? No. Not even close. I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men, and that this makes the notion that one of them would shoot an armed black man who posed no real threat seem more likely.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Any police that used tear gas deliberately against journalists should not only be immediately fired, but charged with a felony and serve jail time.

When the media puts themselves that close to the front line, they become part of the protests, and thus should receive no special treatment. I am not saying whether or not tear gas should be used or not, but the media should receive no special treatment if they are gonna put themselves into the middle of it all.

Not sure you read what I wrote correctly. If the police fired tear gas at rioters, and if journalists just happened to be there in the middle and got caught up in it, then that's acceptable IMO, so I agree with you.

But it has been implied here that the police fired tear gas AT the journalists, that the journalists were their specific intended targets. If that's the case, it's unacceptable.

I haven't seen it, but I won't say it didn't happen. I suspect the cops think the media being there makes their job that much harder, since anything they do will be reported as being wrong (don't believe me, watch MSNBC or read some of the posts here), not to mention that their presence likely riles some people up even more, who want to get on TV one way or another. That is not excusing the behavior, but merely offering some insight into what they might be thinking. I've said all along that the news media and social media have made this 100 times worse than it should be.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

 

[timschochet]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

I hate this kind of response. It ####### reminds of my wife. I remind her a chore she neglected to do, and her response is, "Oh, so you're saying I'm lazy!" ####### HATE that.

Some cops are racist. Some cops aren't racist, but employ racial stereotypes for a variety of reasons. Some cops aren't racist at all.

 

[Doug B]

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Let me make some separation here, and do with the understanding that you and I are more addressing the house than each other.

Tim's post #3044 pretty much lays aside the "victim charging at cop" theory, while I think it's still in play. Annother card I should lay down: I, personally, think the shooting can be justified even without Brown charging Wilson. IMHO, the shooting can be justified in a "fog of war" sense as soon as Brown turns to face Wilson (with the assumption that Brown was running away from Wilson at some point, which has yet to be established AFAIK).

 

[timschochet]

Any police that used tear gas deliberately against journalists should not only be immediately fired, but charged with a felony and serve jail time.

When the media puts themselves that close to the front line, they become part of the protests, and thus should receive no special treatment. I am not saying whether or not tear gas should be used or not, but the media should receive no special treatment if they are gonna put themselves into the middle of it all.

Not sure you read what I wrote correctly. If the police fired tear gas at rioters, and if journalists just happened to be there in the middle and got caught up in it, then that's acceptable IMO, so I agree with you.

But it has been implied here that the police fired tear gas AT the journalists, that the journalists were their specific intended targets. If that's the case, it's unacceptable.

I haven't seen it, but I won't say it didn't happen. I suspect the cops think the media being there makes their job that much harder, since anything they do will be reported as being wrong (don't believe me, watch MSNBC or read some of the posts here), not to mention that their presence likely riles some people up even more, who want to get on TV one way or another. That is not excusing the behavior, but merely offering some insight into what they might be thinking. I've said all along that the news media and social media have made this 100 times worse than it should be.

I agree with you. The cops are angry with the media, and there may be some justification for the anger. But it doesn't change my statement that if they did this deliberately, they need to go to jail.

 

[Doug B]

[to Gary Coal Man]

Not sure who you're referring to ...

He threw you and I into the same hat -- understandably, as I was sticking up for your post #3044 with Jim11.

I don't agree with that post in its entirety, but I did think your points were reasonable.

 

[Ghost Rider]

What's sad is the people, some of whom are here, who are in the camp of those who rip the cops no matter what they do.

The cops stand by and watch and don't stop looting? It's the cops' fault.

The cops try to keep some order by not letting protesting escalate and get out of hand? It's the cops' fault.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I won't say they have handled this as well as they could have, but remember that they have been thrown into a very difficult situation and their lives are on the line. I think some forget that.

 

[sublimeone]

For the sake of race relations I just hope Trayvon 3.0 is a clear cut racist, hate crime murder. Something we can all come together on. The victim can't bash the murderers head into the ground, their can't be video evidence of him working over a little Indian convenience store worker... he needs to be a straight laced, honor roll student without an aggressive bone in his body. The murderer needs to be a former skin head/clan member... maybe have some video evidence of him using the n-word.

I think something like this could really bring us all together.

 

[timschochet]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

I'm sorry but I've never heard of "Buzzpo". It seems to be a conservative website. That doesn't mean it's not telling the truth here, only that I personally have no faith in such a source.

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

What's sad is the people, some of whom are here, who are in the camp of those who rip the cops no matter what they do.

The cops stand by and watch and don't stop looting? It's the cops' fault.

The cops try to keep some order by not letting protesting escalate and get out of hand? It's the cops' fault.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I won't say they have handled this as well as they could have, but remember that they have been thrown into a very difficult situation and their lives are on the line. I think some forget that.

Also, some people are just not good at their jobs. Not everyone will react the same way.

I just try to wait for the facts and go from there. I have had good experiances with cops and bad ones. Same with different races. I like to think I dont let that sway me in my decision making and we shouldnt either. If the FBI is involved I'm sure we'll have a pretty clear picture of what happened when they finish their investgation.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Why would it annoy people? I'm seriously asking.

 

[lod01]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

Did I say that? No. Not even close. I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men, and that this makes the notion that one of them would shoot an armed black man who posed no real threat seem more likely.

More crazy talk. Bravo. Care to give all the numerous examples to back up your claims? A 2008 lawsuit alleging misconduct - thrown out. A current civil rights one pending....against Eddie Boyd. Yeah, he's black. He must be racist against other blacks, huh?

http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-ferguson-police-department-had-history-misconduct-allegations-1661674

Whoa 2 cases in the last 6 years. One dismissed in court. That is a lot of accusations.

Additionally, I noticed you had nothing to counter my statement that I find nothing that shows Wilson's record has a history of bad police work. A history that would suggest your claims of what happened.

 

[timschochet]

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Why would it annoy people? I'm seriously asking.

Because there has been a meme among conservatives for years (perhaps decades now) that all of these sources, (minus Fox), are biased toward liberalism and can't be trusted.

 

[RUSF18]

The STL Dispatch reporter who tweeted yesterday about "police sources saying a dozen witnesses backed up Wilson's story"...also posted this:

Christine Byers @ChristineDByers · 23h

On FMLA from paper. Earlier tweets did not meet standards for publication.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

I'm sorry but I've never heard of "Buzzpo". It seems to be a conservative website. That doesn't mean it's not telling the truth here, only that I personally have no faith in such a source.

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/18/youtube-video-captures-purported-witness-backing-police-version-in-ferguson/

 

[Doug B]

I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men ...

Lod already brought this up ... but this point has to be better supported. Could well be true, but you can't expect an adversary in debate to take the statement at face value.

 

[CBusAlex]

Because all cops are racist.

I hate this kind of response. It ####### reminds of my wife. I remind her a chore she neglected to do, and her response is, "Oh, so you're saying I'm lazy!" ####### HATE that.Some cops are racist. Some cops aren't racist, but employ racial stereotypes for a variety of reasons. Some cops aren't racist at all.

Oh, so you're saying all women are irrational?

 

[timschochet]

Because all cops are racist.

I hate this kind of response. It ####### reminds of my wife. I remind her a chore she neglected to do, and her response is, "Oh, so you're saying I'm lazy!" ####### HATE that.Some cops are racist. Some cops aren't racist, but employ racial stereotypes for a variety of reasons. Some cops aren't racist at all.

Oh, so you're saying all women are irrational?

Yes. Yes I am.

 

[Fennis]

The STL Dispatch reporter who tweeted yesterday about "police sources saying a dozen witnesses backed up Wilson's story"...also posted this:

Christine Byers @ChristineDByers · 23h

On FMLA from paper. Earlier tweets did not meet standards for publication.

what a joke she is.

 

[lod01]

I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men ...

Lod already brought this up ... but this point has to be better supported. Could well be true, but you can't expect an adversary in debate to take the statement at face value.

All he has is 'accusation's' of said behavior. Nothing glaring that would even remotely come close to what he believes, which is a daylight execution of an 'innocent' man. I mean the whole notion of that in this day and age of smart phone just reeks of stupidity, of which I go back and reference this cops record. Still waiting to hear of all his misconduct that would lead anyone to believe he would 'execute' a man in the street.

 

[msommer]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

No ##### Sherlock. And the officer decided to shoot Mr. Brown, who was just peacefully standing there, just for the hell of it. In fact, he decided to unload his weapon; shooting him once or twice...while he was just standing there...with his hands up, no doubt...just wasn't enough.

Yeah, I guess it does seem pretty crazy to think that an officer in the Ferguson police department would act in an irresponsible and destructive manner towards a member of the community, or a black man in particular.

Because all cops are racist.

Did I say that? No. Not even close. I noted that this police department has a record of behaving irresponsibly and violently towards the community,especially black men, and that this makes the notion that one of them would shoot an armed black man who posed no real threat seem more likely.

And because of the behavior they have exhibited in the aftermath

 

[TobiasFunke]

What's sad is the people, some of whom are here, who are in the camp of those who rip the cops no matter what they do.

The cops stand by and watch and don't stop looting? It's the cops' fault.

The cops try to keep some order by not letting protesting escalate and get out of hand? It's the cops' fault.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I won't say they have handled this as well as they could have, but remember that they have been thrown into a very difficult situation and their lives are on the line. I think some forget that.

I've documented several times why I think this escalation is primarily the fault of the police. They have done many, many things wrong- well beyond "not handling this as well as they could have." It would take days to catalog all the things they've done to make things worse.

But for proof, consider last Thursday night. After the Ferguson police came under increased media and political scrutiny (that Wednesday was the day of the recorded arrests of two journalists and is when Rand Paul and Claire McCaskill and a few other national politicians made public statements decrying the police conduct), the St. Louis police were called in and took a completely different approach- no weapons pointed at the protestors, no us vs them mentality, . That was the day that everything seemed back to normal. Better than that, even. It was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.

What happens the next morning? The Ferguson PD has their ridiculous PC where they name the shooter and simultaneously release the robbery video, don't bother to mention that the Brown traffic stop was unrelated to the robbery, give no other updates on the investigation, and take no questions. And guess what? That night we were right back where we started, all the outrage came right back to the front.

Maybe that's just correlation and not causation. But I doubt it. And I consider that the cops' fault.

 

[timschochet]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

I'm sorry but I've never heard of "Buzzpo". It seems to be a conservative website. That doesn't mean it's not telling the truth here, only that I personally have no faith in such a source.

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/18/youtube-video-captures-purported-witness-backing-police-version-in-ferguson/

"Youtube Video", "Purported", "Apparently shows", etc. etc.

Fox themselves never interviewed the "purported witness." Otherwise the article would read, "Witness says..." So in essence, Fox did NOT report this.

I added Fox to be fair to them since they do have a news department and so many people use them as a source. But crap like this demonstrates why one should be skeptical of them as well. I can't imagine CNN, the NY Times, or the Washington Post running with this kind of "story." (I can see MSNBC doing it, though.)

 

[Fennis]

Nice edit, Jim.

Tim's post (#3044) is not non-sensical at all -- he discarded the "blatant shots in the back" theory, and proposed another theory that would clear up some eyewitness ambiguity. Discarding the "victim recklessly charged the cop" theory is not crazy talk. It was easily possible that Brown was shot in the front without charging Wilson. All that was necessary was that Brown be facing Wilson.

EDIT: added post # in first sentence.

But "victim charging at cop" is supported by an almost contemporaneous account from a person who claims to have witnessed the altercation and has no personal stake in the outcome. Albeit, that account is in the background of a recording and the witness remains unidentified. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why someone would completely disregard an alleged eyewitness account that seems no less plausible than some of the other accounts not being dismissed.

Not sure who you're referring to. So far as I know, the only ones who have given this story (of the charging Brown) are:

1. A friend of Wilson's wife on a radio program.

2. A newspaper gossip columnist claiming that she is aware of 12 witnesses willing to back up the police's story (except that we don't have the police's story at this point.)

Is there somebody else? Because it's hard for me to take these sources with more than a grain of salt.

Here: http://buzzpo.com/breaking-news-new-witness-blows-huge-hole-michael-brown-case/#!

I'm sorry but I've never heard of "Buzzpo". It seems to be a conservative website. That doesn't mean it's not telling the truth here, only that I personally have no faith in such a source.

This is probably going to make some people here annoyed, but I continue to believe that unless it's been reported by one of the majors: CNN, NBC, Fox, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.- we should discount it.

Here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/18/youtube-video-captures-purported-witness-backing-police-version-in-ferguson/

"Youtube Video", "Purported", "Apparently shows", etc. etc.

Fox themselves never interviewed the "purported witness." Otherwise the article would read, "Witness says..." So in essence, Fox did NOT report this.

I added Fox to be fair to them since they do have a news department and so many people use them as a source. But crap like this demonstrates why one should be skeptical of them as well. I can't imagine CNN, the NY Times, or the Washington Post running with this kind of "story." (I can see MSNBC doing it, though.)

CNN.com ran a similar story as the foxnews.com story.