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

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS, I don't disagree with you about BIG, but I think it's a political impossibility in this country. I've raised it with a lot of my friends and family, conservatives and liberals alike, none of whom have ever heard of it. 100% of the people I have mentioned it to are immediately opposed. No matter what, they can't get past the part of "income guarantee". Intuitively, it just feels anti-American, and we have enough populism in this country that such a law would have no chance of passing. It won't ever happen.

If it was 1925 how many of your friends would have heard of Social Security and, once explained supported it?

Look at this board. It went from the support of one casual mention (by me) in a FairTax thread to where now all the intelligent posters from the left, the right, the middle support it, at least in some form. (And, yes, I know what I just did here.)

But it's not the same as Social Security.

The only way to get it done is to call it something else. Universal insurance, or something like that. You can't call it an income guarantee because nobody will accept that.

You missed the point. Things aren't static. Your "nobody will accept that" might be true today, but ....

 

[timschochet]

BFS, I don't disagree with you about BIG, but I think it's a political impossibility in this country. I've raised it with a lot of my friends and family, conservatives and liberals alike, none of whom have ever heard of it. 100% of the people I have mentioned it to are immediately opposed. No matter what, they can't get past the part of "income guarantee". Intuitively, it just feels anti-American, and we have enough populism in this country that such a law would have no chance of passing. It won't ever happen.

If it was 1925 how many of your friends would have heard of Social Security and, once explained supported it?

Look at this board. It went from the support of one casual mention (by me) in a FairTax thread to where now all the intelligent posters from the left, the right, the middle support it, at least in some form. (And, yes, I know what I just did here.)

But it's not the same as Social Security.

The only way to get it done is to call it something else. Universal insurance, or something like that. You can't call it an income guarantee because nobody will accept that.

You missed the point. Things aren't static. Your "nobody will accept that" might be true today, but ....

No I got what you meant, I just don't agree. Certain aspects of the belief in "the American dream" won't ever change. We have this image of ourselves as rugged individualists who are self-starters, a society in which everyone earns what they deserve, and the smarter you are, the richer you can get. It's not true for many, and it's never been true for many. But we believe it, and always have.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS, I don't disagree with you about BIG, but I think it's a political impossibility in this country. I've raised it with a lot of my friends and family, conservatives and liberals alike, none of whom have ever heard of it. 100% of the people I have mentioned it to are immediately opposed. No matter what, they can't get past the part of "income guarantee". Intuitively, it just feels anti-American, and we have enough populism in this country that such a law would have no chance of passing. It won't ever happen.

If it was 1925 how many of your friends would have heard of Social Security and, once explained supported it?

Look at this board. It went from the support of one casual mention (by me) in a FairTax thread to where now all the intelligent posters from the left, the right, the middle support it, at least in some form. (And, yes, I know what I just did here.)

But it's not the same as Social Security.

The only way to get it done is to call it something else. Universal insurance, or something like that. You can't call it an income guarantee because nobody will accept that.

You missed the point. Things aren't static. Your "nobody will accept that" might be true today, but ....

No I got what you meant, I just don't agree. Certain aspects of the belief in "the American dream" won't ever change. We have this image of ourselves as rugged individualists who are self-starters, a society in which everyone earns what they deserve, and the smarter you are, the richer you can get. It's not true for many, and it's never been true for many. But we believe it, and always have.

Sure. And we will do crazy things to keep the dream a live, which hopefully at some point includes a BIG. Just hope that we don't wait so long that it is in response to the rapid crumbling of that dream.

 

[[icon]]

Not sure if posted....

Residue confirms "nice young boy's" sandwich must have discharged at officer.

Let's burn some gas stations down!

 

[Parrothead]

Not sure if posted....

Residue confirms "nice young boy's" sandwich must have discharged at officer.

Let's burn some gas stations down!

so the sandwich was a gun? :shocked face:

 

[Sweet J]

Not sure if posted....

Residue confirms "nice young boy's" sandwich must have discharged at officer.

Let's burn some gas stations down!

I'd be more interested in the quality of the interaction between the young black man and the older white civilian who happed to also have a second job as a police officer but wasn't working as a police officer at the time.

Some questions that may have been answered here that I'm interested in (feel free to repeat):

- did the white civilian have the legal authority to stop the young man and detain him?

- was the civilian acting in his capacity as a police officer, with all the rights, protections, and authorities that go with it?

- did the young man understand that this person who was trying to detain him was acting in the capacity of a police officer (rather than as a nosy/aggressive/threatening civilian)?

- did the young man understand that this man who stopped him was a police officer who had authority to detain him?

- etc. etc.

I raise these issues because I can imagine a world in which, say, a black-owned nightclub hired "private security" to "stop and frisk" the neighborhood because there were some potentially shady characters involved. Let's say that a white college student (or fireman, or whatever), was skulking around the neighborhood for whatever reason (maybe he's meeting his girlfriend, maybe he's going to the club, maybe he's buying drugs, or a prostitute), and got stopped (and potentially threatened) by the black "security guard." And let's say an argument ensued, the black guy chased the white guy, the white guy fired at the black guy, and the black "security guard" shot and killed him. Do we want to live in a world where a person who isn't working as a police officer can chase someone and shoot him dead, even though the person hadn't presented any death-worthy activities (not counting shooting at the non-police officer; if he hadn't have chased the kid, he wouldn't have shot at him).

Edit: I now see that the person was not working in his capacity as a police officer, but was wearing his police officer uniform and carrying his department-issued gun. This is such an effed-up situation. This can't be good policy. Can I really hire an off-duty cop to be my private police officer? To patrol what I want him to patrol and to stop people I think are suspicious? Using the power and authority of the city to detain people? Just because I have the money to hire him. I can't believe it's good policy.

 

[[icon]]

"The St. Louis Metropolitan Department explained the work of its unnamed officer this way in a statement: “To clarify, secondary employment allows officers to work security in uniform and carry their department-issued weapons. The officer, while not on duty for the Police Department, still has the same responsibilities and power to affect arrest and the officer operates in the capacity as a St. Louis Police Officer. St. Louis Police Officers work secondary for securities companies, business establishments, sporting events, etc.”

He not only has the authority to continue his duties as a law enforcement officer, but he has the "responsibility" to.

Aspects of this are also supported on the federal level:

Klinger said as a legal matter, the nature of the incident is irrelevant. “If you’re a police officer and you see something that is either illegal or could be illegal, you have lawful authority to make an inquiry.” In fact, federal law increasingly encourages this type of behavior. In 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which permitted cops whether or not they are on duty to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the country with a few limited exceptions.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Edit: I now see that the person was not working in his capacity as a police officer, but was wearing his police officer uniform and carrying his department-issued gun. This is such an effed-up situation. This can't be good policy. Can I really hire an off-duty cop to be my private police officer? To patrol what I want him to patrol and to stop people I think are suspicious? Using the power and authority of the city to detain people? Just because I have the money to hire him. I can't believe it's good policy.

Yea, this policy sucks!!!! We have a dead felon who shoots at someone in a police uniform. This young innocent man was only arrested for a felony weapons charge 4 months ago. WTF is wrong with society that these gun carrying felons can't go about their business

Time to go to Costco and steal a TV

 

[Sweet J]

"The St. Louis Metropolitan Department explained the work of its unnamed officer this way in a statement: “To clarify, secondary employment allows officers to work security in uniform and carry their department-issued weapons. The officer, while not on duty for the Police Department, still has the same responsibilities and power to affect arrest and the officer operates in the capacity as a St. Louis Police Officer. St. Louis Police Officers work secondary for securities companies, business establishments, sporting events, etc.”

He not only has the authority to continue his duties as a law enforcement officer, but he has the "responsibility" to.

Aspects of this are also supported on the federal level:

“If you’re a police officer and you see something that is either illegal or could be illegal, you have lawful authority to make an inquiry.” In fact, federal law increasingly encourages this type of behavior. In 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which permitted cops whether or not they are on duty to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the country with a few limited exceptions.

Yeah, I saw that. Completely separate and apart from the stuff that we are discussing in this thread, I don't understand how this is appropriate, fair, or works. Police officers have incredible powers when dealing with citizens. The power to take someone's freedom, and even life, if threatened. And because of such great powers they they hold over average joe's like you and me, they are subject to strict oversight by commanders, supervisors, captains. Who oversees or supervises these officers when they hire out these powers to the highest bidder?

Just gives me the willies.

But, as I said, that's kind of unrelated to the issues in this thread.

 

[Sweet J]

Edit: I now see that the person was not working in his capacity as a police officer, but was wearing his police officer uniform and carrying his department-issued gun. This is such an effed-up situation. This can't be good policy. Can I really hire an off-duty cop to be my private police officer? To patrol what I want him to patrol and to stop people I think are suspicious? Using the power and authority of the city to detain people? Just because I have the money to hire him. I can't believe it's good policy.

Yea, this policy sucks!!!! We have a dead felon who shoots at someone in a police uniform. This young innocent man was only arrested for a felony weapons charge 4 months ago. WTF is wrong with society that these gun carrying felons can't go about their business

Time to go to Costco and steal a TV

I know this is shtick, but I still feel compelled to respond to your nonsense. I have no idea why.

 

[Jim11]

Not sure if posted....

Residue confirms "nice young boy's" sandwich must have discharged at officer.

Let's burn some gas stations down!

But loot them first.

 

[Jim11]

"The St. Louis Metropolitan Department explained the work of its unnamed officer this way in a statement: “To clarify, secondary employment allows officers to work security in uniform and carry their department-issued weapons. The officer, while not on duty for the Police Department, still has the same responsibilities and power to affect arrest and the officer operates in the capacity as a St. Louis Police Officer. St. Louis Police Officers work secondary for securities companies, business establishments, sporting events, etc.”

He not only has the authority to continue his duties as a law enforcement officer, but he has the "responsibility" to.

Aspects of this are also supported on the federal level:

Klinger said as a legal matter, the nature of the incident is irrelevant. “If you’re a police officer and you see something that is either illegal or could be illegal, you have lawful authority to make an inquiry.” In fact, federal law increasingly encourages this type of behavior. In 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which permitted cops whether or not they are on duty to carry concealed firearms anywhere in the country with a few limited exceptions.

Lefties are always looking for a way to blame the police.

 

[[icon]]

But, as I said, that's kind of unrelated to the issues in this thread.

On the contrary...

• Off duty officer with authority/responsibility to investigate wrong doing when off duty

• Kid shoots at officer. ONLY way this is justified is if the officer presented capacity and intent to do lethal harm to the kid. That has been in no way shown.

• Off-duty officer returns fire at kid and kills him. Pretty much every citizen has the right to defend himself against lethal force.

Open and shut case IMO.

 

[Jim11]

Well, well.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/breaking-grand-jury-witness-says-mike-browns-hands-were-not-up-when-shot-handsdowndontshoot/

An eyewitness to the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson told the grand jury this week that Brown did not have his hands up when he was shot dead by Officer Darren Wilson. The eyewitness watched the shooting from near the Canfield Green apartments.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Well, well.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/breaking-grand-jury-witness-says-mike-browns-hands-were-not-up-when-shot-handsdowndontshoot/

An eyewitness to the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson told the grand jury this week that Brown did not have his hands up when he was shot dead by Officer Darren Wilson. The eyewitness watched the shooting from near the Canfield Green apartments.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

The witness, who is African-American for what it’s worth, corroborated Brown’s best friend Dorian Johnson’s account of the incident saying he (Dorian) began running moments after the first shot was fired inside Wilson’s police SUV.

The most chilling portion of Byers’ piece, however, arises when the witness relives the actual shooting detail-by-detail.

The witness said he had been on the right side of the police SUV and did not have a clear view of what happened on the opposite, driver’s side. “There was a tussle going on,” he said, adding that he believes he saw Wilson’s hat fly off.
He then heard a shot and saw Brown run, followed by Wilson. He said Wilson aimed his handgun at Brown and yelled: “Stop! Stop! Stop!”
The witness said Brown did stop, mumbled something he could not clearly hear and took a step toward Wilson.
“When he stepped foot on that street, the officer told him to stop again, and he fired three shots,” the witness recalled. “When he (Brown) got hit, he staggered like, ‘Oh,’ and his body moved. Then he looked down.
“His hands were up like this (he gestures with arms out to the side and palms upward), and he was looking at the officer and was coming toward him trying to keep his feet and stand up. The officer took a few steps back and yelled, ‘Stop,’ again, and Michael was trying to stay on his feet.
“He was 20 to 25 feet from officer, and after he started staggering, he (Wilson) let off four more rounds. As he was firing those last rounds, Michael was on his way down. We were thinking,
‘Oh my God, oh my God, brother, stop, stop.’ He was already on his way down when he fired those last shots.”

Then there are quotes like this next one that make it hard to believe Brown’s parents won’t at least receive the opportunity to fight for their son’s justice. “It went from zero to 100 like that, in the blink of an eye,” the witness said. “What transpired to us, in my eyesight, was murder. Down outright murder.”

Map of the shooting events

 

[Jim11]

Well, well.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/breaking-grand-jury-witness-says-mike-browns-hands-were-not-up-when-shot-handsdowndontshoot/

An eyewitness to the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson told the grand jury this week that Brown did not have his hands up when he was shot dead by Officer Darren Wilson. The eyewitness watched the shooting from near the Canfield Green apartments.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

The witness, who is African-American for what it’s worth, corroborated Brown’s best friend Dorian Johnson’s account of the incident saying he (Dorian) began running moments after the first shot was fired inside Wilson’s police SUV.

The most chilling portion of Byers’ piece, however, arises when the witness relives the actual shooting detail-by-detail.

Then there are quotes like this next one that make it hard to believe Brown’s parents won’t at least receive the opportunity to fight for their son’s justice. “It went from zero to 100 like that, in the blink of an eye,” the witness said. “What transpired to us, in my eyesight, was murder. Down outright murder.”

The witness said he had been on the right side of the police SUV and did not have a clear view of what happened on the opposite, driver’s side. “There was a tussle going on,” he said, adding that he believes he saw Wilson’s hat fly off.

He then heard a shot and saw Brown run, followed by Wilson. He said Wilson aimed his handgun at Brown and yelled: “Stop! Stop! Stop!”

The witness said Brown did stop, mumbled something he could not clearly hear and took a step toward Wilson.

“When he stepped foot on that street, the officer told him to stop again, and he fired three shots,” the witness recalled. “When he (Brown) got hit, he staggered like, ‘Oh,’ and his body moved. Then he looked down.

“His hands were up like this (he gestures with arms out to the side and palms upward), and he was looking at the officer and was coming toward him trying to keep his feet and stand up. The officer took a few steps back and yelled, ‘Stop,’ again, and Michael was trying to stay on his feet.

“He was 20 to 25 feet from officer, and after he started staggering, he (Wilson) let off four more rounds. As he was firing those last rounds, Michael was on his way down. We were thinking, ‘Oh my God, oh my God, brother, stop, stop.’ He was already on his way down when he fired those last shots.”

Map of the shooting events

So if Mr. Brown had not taken a step towards Wilson when told to stop, he would not have been shot.

 

[Henry Ford]

Edit: I now see that the person was not working in his capacity as a police officer, but was wearing his police officer uniform and carrying his department-issued gun. This is such an effed-up situation. This can't be good policy. Can I really hire an off-duty cop to be my private police officer? To patrol what I want him to patrol and to stop people I think are suspicious? Using the power and authority of the city to detain people? Just because I have the money to hire him. I can't believe it's good policy.

Yea, this policy sucks!!!! We have a dead felon who shoots at someone in a police uniform. This young innocent man was only arrested for a felony weapons charge 4 months ago. WTF is wrong with society that these gun carrying felons can't go about their business

Time to go to Costco and steal a TV

Don't be stupid. Black people don't even know what Costco is.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Well, well.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/breaking-grand-jury-witness-says-mike-browns-hands-were-not-up-when-shot-handsdowndontshoot/

An eyewitness to the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson told the grand jury this week that Brown did not have his hands up when he was shot dead by Officer Darren Wilson. The eyewitness watched the shooting from near the Canfield Green apartments.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

The witness, who is African-American for what it’s worth, corroborated Brown’s best friend Dorian Johnson’s account of the incident saying he (Dorian) began running moments after the first shot was fired inside Wilson’s police SUV.

The most chilling portion of Byers’ piece, however, arises when the witness relives the actual shooting detail-by-detail.

Then there are quotes like this next one that make it hard to believe Brown’s parents won’t at least receive the opportunity to fight for their son’s justice. “It went from zero to 100 like that, in the blink of an eye,” the witness said. “What transpired to us, in my eyesight, was murder. Down outright murder.”

The witness said he had been on the right side of the police SUV and did not have a clear view of what happened on the opposite, driver’s side. “There was a tussle going on,” he said, adding that he believes he saw Wilson’s hat fly off.

He then heard a shot and saw Brown run, followed by Wilson. He said Wilson aimed his handgun at Brown and yelled: “Stop! Stop! Stop!”

The witness said Brown did stop, mumbled something he could not clearly hear and took a step toward Wilson.

“When he stepped foot on that street, the officer told him to stop again, and he fired three shots,” the witness recalled. “When he (Brown) got hit, he staggered like, ‘Oh,’ and his body moved. Then he looked down.

“His hands were up like this (he gestures with arms out to the side and palms upward), and he was looking at the officer and was coming toward him trying to keep his feet and stand up. The officer took a few steps back and yelled, ‘Stop,’ again, and Michael was trying to stay on his feet.

“He was 20 to 25 feet from officer, and after he started staggering, he (Wilson) let off four more rounds. As he was firing those last rounds, Michael was on his way down. We were thinking, ‘Oh my God, oh my God, brother, stop, stop.’ He was already on his way down when he fired those last shots.”

Map of the shooting events

So if Mr. Brown had not taken a step towards Wilson when told to stop, he would not have been shot.

he had already been shot ,thats why he turned and faced wilson...im gonna ''guess'' he was simply staggering forward in shock...it clearly says he looked as if he was trying to catch his balance...even the witness who YOU quoted said it was murder

 

[Parrothead]

Edit: I now see that the person was not working in his capacity as a police officer, but was wearing his police officer uniform and carrying his department-issued gun. This is such an effed-up situation. This can't be good policy. Can I really hire an off-duty cop to be my private police officer? To patrol what I want him to patrol and to stop people I think are suspicious? Using the power and authority of the city to detain people? Just because I have the money to hire him. I can't believe it's good policy.

Yea, this policy sucks!!!! We have a dead felon who shoots at someone in a police uniform. This young innocent man was only arrested for a felony weapons charge 4 months ago. WTF is wrong with society that these gun carrying felons can't go about their business

Time to go to Costco and steal a TV

Don't be stupid. Black people don't even know what Costco is.

you need an ID to be a COSTCO member..

 

[D_House]

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/the-racist-housing-policies-that-built-ferguson/381595/

 

[Mark Davis]

Edit: I now see that the person was not working in his capacity as a police officer, but was wearing his police officer uniform and carrying his department-issued gun. This is such an effed-up situation. This can't be good policy. Can I really hire an off-duty cop to be my private police officer? To patrol what I want him to patrol and to stop people I think are suspicious? Using the power and authority of the city to detain people? Just because I have the money to hire him. I can't believe it's good policy.

Yea, this policy sucks!!!! We have a dead felon who shoots at someone in a police uniform. This young innocent man was only arrested for a felony weapons charge 4 months ago. WTF is wrong with society that these gun carrying felons can't go about their business

Time to go to Costco and steal a TV

Don't be stupid. Black people don't even know what Costco is.

you need an ID to be a COSTCO member..

The Rev calls it a Poll Tax!

 

[Jim11]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

 

[boots11234]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

 

[timschochet]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

Several. But Wilson shot him outside the van, apparently from a distance of 20-25 feet. So I'm not sure how that gibes with his tale. But I think you've got the wrong guy anyhow, since I've stated over and over in this thread that there probably isn't enough evidence to indict Wilson. Guess we'll see.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

 

[fatness]

So Brown was shot in the car, and shot more times while he ran.

This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators, but it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html?_r=0

 

[timschochet]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

1. Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
2. An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

• Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the defence of life standard.
• An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

Seems like #2 is in play here.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

The change would be that the Courts would not simply be analyzing the Officer's conduct using a self defense standard. They would also be evaluating it as to whether it was reasonable behavior for an Officer in hot pursuit of a violent felon.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

1. Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
2. An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

I see you have this well in hand.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Meh - blood was obviously planted.

As for the bruises and scratches, the officer was clearly beating himself up over needing so many shots to kill 1 fleeing suspect.

 

[Ghost Rider]

So Brown was shot in the car, and shot more times while he ran.

This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators, but it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html?_r=0

Taking down a guy, who just attacked a cop and tried to disarm him to the point of possibly killing him, doesn't seem completely unreasonable. Are cops supposed to just let guys like that get away? I am not saying they should shoot to kill every fleeing criminal, granted.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

• Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the defence of life standard.
• An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

Seems like #2 is in play here.

it certainly smells like #2

But - where the story falls apart is when the evidence shows the officer shot Brown in the front of his body - clearly indicating he was no longer fleeing.

So the story will have to be that the officer shot because he feared for his life - despite holding the only weapon, and the suspect was what, 30 feet away?

Dude should be considering the best plea deal he can get.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

• Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the defence of life standard.
• An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

Seems like #2 is in play here.

it certainly smells like #2

But - where the story falls apart is when the evidence shows the officer shot Brown in the front of his body - clearly indicating he was no longer fleeing.

So the story will have to be that the officer shot because he feared for his life - despite holding the only weapon, and the suspect was what, 30 feet away?

Dude should be considering the best plea deal he can get.

Does "fleeing" mean running away from, or does it have a broader legal meaning, such as continuing to elude capture or refusal to submit to lawful authority? Can you flee towards someone?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Another matter to consider, I suggested this earlier but it may have gotten lost in a schochet storm, regardless of the law pertaining to self defense, use of force, use of force to capture a fleeing felon and the subcategory pertaining to violent fleeing felons, what impact would there be if the Officer violated his department's directives on any of these issues. The Officer may not be criminally culpable, but civilly, who can say?

 

[timschochet]

Another matter to consider, I suggested this earlier but it may have gotten lost in a schochet storm, regardless of the law pertaining to self defense, use of force, use of force to capture a fleeing felon and the subcategory pertaining to violent fleeing felons, what impact would there be if the Officer violated his department's directives on any of these issues. The Officer may not be criminally culpable, but civilly, who can say?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Well, certainly fleeing connotes trying to get away - and running toward someone, after you already ran away from them, seems to be the antithesis of "fleeing"

flee |flē| verb (flees, fleeing; past and past participle fled |fled| ) [ no obj. ]
run away from a place or situation of danger

Now, you could try to argue that he was fleeing first, and then was threatening the life of an officer - but then the story gets a little sticky - its hard to do both. If its a local prosecutor, I would imagine he has an easier time of it, than if this is taken over by a federal prosecutor on some kind of civil rights charge.

 

[timschochet]

Based on Wilson's testimony, here is my feeling about what happened (and "feeling it is ALL that it is):

Michael Brown was a thug. Wilson stopped him and his buddy because they were young and black and looked suspicious (racial profiling, but a lot of cops do it.) Brown got ugly. There was a struggle, and Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun. (Not only was Brown a thug, but an idiot as well.) Brown failed to get the gun, and took off like a bat out of hell. Wilson told him to stop or he'd shoot, which was perfectly correct; Brown had shown himself to be a bad guy and a danger to the public. Wilson fired and either hit Brown, missed. Either way, Brown stopped.

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

So if I were dispensing justice? I would probably relieve Wilson of his duties as a policeman. But he wouldn't serve any jail time.

Now more facts may come out that will alter my opinion. But at this point, that's what I think happened. Like most of these situations, it's more sad and pathetic than anything else. And while I understand the protestors and share their concerns about racial profiling and the mistreatment of African-Americans, and while I believe that Wilson acted emotionally and wrongly by shooting Brown to death, I also believe that Brown was a thug who ended up getting what he probably deserved.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Well, certainly fleeing connotes trying to get away - and running toward someone, after you already ran away from them, seems to be the antithesis of "fleeing"

flee |flē| verb (flees, fleeing; past and past participle fled |fled| ) [ no obj. ]

run away from a place or situation of danger

Now, you could try to argue that he was fleeing first, and then was threatening the life of an officer - but then the story gets a little sticky - its hard to do both. If its a local prosecutor, I would imagine he has an easier time of it, than if this is taken over by a federal prosecutor on some kind of civil rights charge.

The common parlance is clear. Is the term, however, a legal term of art? Does it encompass more than running away?

 

[msommer]

Based on Wilson's testimony, here is my feeling about what happened (and "feeling it is ALL that it is):

Michael Brown was a thug. Wilson stopped him and his buddy because they were young and black and looked suspicious (racial profiling, but a lot of cops do it.) Brown got ugly. There was a struggle, and Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun. (Not only was Brown a thug, but an idiot as well.) Brown failed to get the gun, and took off like a bat out of hell. Wilson told him to stop or he'd shoot, which was perfectly correct; Brown had shown himself to be a bad guy and a danger to the public. Wilson fired and either hit Brown, missed. Either way, Brown stopped.

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

So if I were dispensing justice? I would probably relieve Brown of his duties as a policeman. But he wouldn't serve any jail time.

Now more facts may come out that will alter my opinion. But at this point, that's what I think happened. Like most of these situations, it's more sad and pathetic than anything else. And while I understand the protestors and share their concerns about racial profiling and the mistreatment of African-Americans, and while I believe that Wilson acted emotionally and wrongly by shooting Brown to death, I also believe that Brown was a thug who ended up getting what he probably deserved.

Brown was undercover?

 

[msommer]

Officer Wilson's Grand Jury testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Browns blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilsons uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

Houston/Tim we MAY have a problem.

if thats where it ended then it would have been justified....shooting an unarmed person that was fleeing loses all credibility and looks like anger was the motivation

If we suppose this new information is correct Brown was not an "unarmed person fleeing" he was a "fleeing felon". I take note of this because in most jurisdictions the law for apprehending fleeing felons is slightly different than for apprehending others, both as to expectancies of pursuit and apprehension, and as to use of force.

how much different? Not meant to a challenge , just wondering how it changes things.

• Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the defence of life standard.
• An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

Seems like #2 is in play here.

it certainly smells like #2

But - where the story falls apart is when the evidence shows the officer shot Brown in the front of his body - clearly indicating he was no longer fleeing.

So the story will have to be that the officer shot because he feared for his life - despite holding the only weapon, and the suspect was what, 30 feet away?

Dude should be considering the best plea deal he can get.

But he was charging!

One faltering step at a time...

 

[timschochet]

Based on Wilson's testimony, here is my feeling about what happened (and "feeling it is ALL that it is):

Michael Brown was a thug. Wilson stopped him and his buddy because they were young and black and looked suspicious (racial profiling, but a lot of cops do it.) Brown got ugly. There was a struggle, and Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun. (Not only was Brown a thug, but an idiot as well.) Brown failed to get the gun, and took off like a bat out of hell. Wilson told him to stop or he'd shoot, which was perfectly correct; Brown had shown himself to be a bad guy and a danger to the public. Wilson fired and either hit Brown, missed. Either way, Brown stopped.

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

So if I were dispensing justice? I would probably relieve Brown of his duties as a policeman. But he wouldn't serve any jail time.

Now more facts may come out that will alter my opinion. But at this point, that's what I think happened. Like most of these situations, it's more sad and pathetic than anything else. And while I understand the protestors and share their concerns about racial profiling and the mistreatment of African-Americans, and while I believe that Wilson acted emotionally and wrongly by shooting Brown to death, I also believe that Brown was a thug who ended up getting what he probably deserved.

Brown was undercover?

lol. Sorry, of course I meant Wilson.

 

[Jim11]

Based on Wilson's testimony, here is my feeling about what happened (and "feeling it is ALL that it is):

Michael Brown was a thug. Wilson stopped him and his buddy because they were young and black and looked suspicious (racial profiling, but a lot of cops do it.) Brown got ugly. There was a struggle, and Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun. (Not only was Brown a thug, but an idiot as well.) Brown failed to get the gun, and took off like a bat out of hell. Wilson told him to stop or he'd shoot, which was perfectly correct; Brown had shown himself to be a bad guy and a danger to the public. Wilson fired and either hit Brown, missed. Either way, Brown stopped.

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

So if I were dispensing justice? I would probably relieve Brown of his duties as a policeman. But he wouldn't serve any jail time.

Now more facts may come out that will alter my opinion. But at this point, that's what I think happened. Like most of these situations, it's more sad and pathetic than anything else. And while I understand the protestors and share their concerns about racial profiling and the mistreatment of African-Americans, and while I believe that Wilson acted emotionally and wrongly by shooting Brown to death, I also believe that Brown was a thug who ended up getting what he probably deserved.

Brown was undercover?

lol. Sorry, of course I meant Wilson.

Your latest "feeling" on what may have transpired might be your most sensible post ever.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Based on Wilson's testimony, here is my feeling about what happened (and "feeling it is ALL that it is):

Michael Brown was a thug. Wilson stopped him and his buddy because they were young and black and looked suspicious (racial profiling, but a lot of cops do it.) Brown got ugly. There was a struggle, and Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun. (Not only was Brown a thug, but an idiot as well.) Brown failed to get the gun, and took off like a bat out of hell. Wilson told him to stop or he'd shoot, which was perfectly correct; Brown had shown himself to be a bad guy and a danger to the public. Wilson fired and either hit Brown, missed. Either way, Brown stopped.

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

So if I were dispensing justice? I would probably relieve Brown of his duties as a policeman. But he wouldn't serve any jail time.

Now more facts may come out that will alter my opinion. But at this point, that's what I think happened. Like most of these situations, it's more sad and pathetic than anything else. And while I understand the protestors and share their concerns about racial profiling and the mistreatment of African-Americans, and while I believe that Wilson acted emotionally and wrongly by shooting Brown to death, I also believe that Brown was a thug who ended up getting what he probably deserved.

Brown was undercover?

lol. Sorry, of course I meant Wilson.

Your latest "feeling" on what may have transpired might be your most sensible post ever.

Jim ...you just love the fact he called Brown a THUG

 

[Jim11]

Based on Wilson's testimony, here is my feeling about what happened (and "feeling it is ALL that it is):

Michael Brown was a thug. Wilson stopped him and his buddy because they were young and black and looked suspicious (racial profiling, but a lot of cops do it.) Brown got ugly. There was a struggle, and Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun. (Not only was Brown a thug, but an idiot as well.) Brown failed to get the gun, and took off like a bat out of hell. Wilson told him to stop or he'd shoot, which was perfectly correct; Brown had shown himself to be a bad guy and a danger to the public. Wilson fired and either hit Brown, missed. Either way, Brown stopped.

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

So if I were dispensing justice? I would probably relieve Brown of his duties as a policeman. But he wouldn't serve any jail time.

Now more facts may come out that will alter my opinion. But at this point, that's what I think happened. Like most of these situations, it's more sad and pathetic than anything else. And while I understand the protestors and share their concerns about racial profiling and the mistreatment of African-Americans, and while I believe that Wilson acted emotionally and wrongly by shooting Brown to death, I also believe that Brown was a thug who ended up getting what he probably deserved.

Brown was undercover?

lol. Sorry, of course I meant Wilson.

Your latest "feeling" on what may have transpired might be your most sensible post ever.

Jim ...you just love the fact he called Brown a THUG

I hope that's in jest, BK. I happen to agree that the Officer may have panicked. based on what happened when Brown accosted him while he was in his vehicle, and shot to protect himself. I also agree that Wilson should be dismissed from the force.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

More peaceful protesters.

I found myself, unexpectedly, right next to these people yesterday when I left the game. My GB's left the game early so I was by myself and I left at the 2:00 mark so there weren't a whole lot of people around.

This will be the fourth time that I've had people yelling, cursing and calling me a racist. You know, because I shave my head since most of my hair has fallen out. I'm obviously a racist because I don't have hair. All because I have the nerve to attend sporting events. That isn't harassment though. These people's rights trump mine.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Classy.

 

[Sweet J]

People are angry. I understand why.