This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Cops were in a situation where the information relayed to them was a menacing figure with a gun. The functionality of a gun doesn't change when being held by a 12 year old or a 90 year old. I can't fault them for their actions here, and anyone who does loses credibility.
Actually, it wasn't. At all. That's what the majority of witnesses testify to, and the autopsy is no way refutes it. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually read the things you spout on about.
No, but can't we fault the operator for not relaying that important information? I also wonder what their training says about driving up to within feet of a guy suspected to have a gun? Seems like a dumb move especially if it were a real gun and you're still seated.
Those guys that created Google are pretty smart. Probably why they're billionaires and I'm not. But you'd be surprised at how far off the terms I used to find something and ended up stumbling upon it.
I do agree with this. The prosecutor should have just said publicly that there isn't enough evidence to bring charges and left it at that.
Uhh. What? You actually watched the video, right? The cops drove up on the grass and shot him in under two seconds. The video doesn't clearly show the 12 year old kid grab or point the airsoft gun at police. The 911 caller indicated to police that the "gun was probably fake". There are lots of things wrong with that case.
That info wasn't relayed to the officer. They were under the impression they were approaching a menacing figure who had a firearm. This isn't complicated and not on the cops
Furthermore, the firing officer wasn't driving. He was in a situation where he felt his life was in jeopardy. He had every right to act as he did there. It is sad, but he can't be faulted by anyone with a brain.Not sure about this one. Did you watch the video? Kid sees the car coming and casual walks up to it. Cop jumps out of the car and shoots. They could have at least pulled up on the street and quickly assessed the situation.
Agreed. At best, this situation seems to have been handled incredibly poorly. I'm not involved in law enforcement so I'm not really qualified to say, but I find it hard to believe that driving right up to within feet of what you think is an armed person is the correct protocol for this sort of scenario. In fairness, the guy who did the shooting wasn't the guy who was driving, and he had really good reason for acting in self defense (in his view).
"News events in the US I haven't heard about yet, to avoid any snarky internet comments"
Uhm, yes? You realize the protests that are happening aren't just about (and I would personally argue aren't even mostly about) Michael Brown, right?
Correct! It's also about getting as much loot as you can under the guise of OUTRAGE!
Pretty sure most of these protesters dont even know why they are protesting, so I am pretty sure you don't know either.
You have her home address and photo of what the house looks like? Maybe I should see if the NY Times has posted it yet.
Nothing was confirmed or refuted by "the witnesses". They were all over the map on almost every question.
As usual, celebrities offer up the most insightful and intelligent commentary on society. Maybe if we could hear from Sean Penn and Jenny McCarthy we could solve this problem.
You should probably read the testimony you're talking about.
It perpetuated the view that everything since Brown died has been a sham. And it's pretty easy to believe that grand jury dog and pony show was just that - a dog and pony show.
I'm guessing >50% of the protestors think Michael Brown was shot in the back while running away.
I, for one, always wait to hear from Ted Nugent before I finalize my opinion on any subject. Finally he weighs in.
Way to pull a quote from a news article, I'm super proud of you. If you'd read the actual testimony, you'd know that the picture is not at all clear. Dorian indicated he thought Brown was shot in the back because he saw Brown make a "jerking" motion while he was running away. At least one other witness unrelated to Brown or Johnson (and not discredited) indicated he also though Brown was shot while running because of a jerking motion he made while running away. That motion could easily have been in response to his already sustained injuries and the shock wearing off. Accounts differ on how many shots were fired and when they were fired because, obviously, memory is imperfect. I wouldn't at all be surprised that Dorian's memory thought shots were fired while Brown was running. He states in his testimony that after the shots were fired in the car, he was busy getting out of there. With all of the commotion, he's not the only one that incorrectly remembers exactly how many and when shots were fired (and that applies to all witnesses, including those supporting Wilson's story).
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. As evidenced by this thread, most people haven't bothered to read the actual evidence. But the rage being expressed is not at all borne from a single incident.
You are absolutely wrong. A prosecutor has an ethical duty not to bring charges if there is insufficient evidence, or in this case if a shooting was justified. News Flash: It was. He surely had the opinion that it would be an injustice to charge, and put an innocent man on a show trial with his life in the balance. And so he took a laudable and responsible tack (something many of the protestors seem incapable of even fathoming) and let a Grand Jury evaluate. The truth here is that there are victims in this case, and none of them are Michael Brown. In fact, the victims are victims of Michael Brown's actions (and some by his step father). The Indian store owner who was robbed and has had his store looted twice = victim. Darren Wilson who had a tough job having to brave the ilk of the thugs we've seen in their full glory and acted reasonably to protect his life against a 300 pound giant grabbing for his gun after hitting him = victim. We'll come a lot further in this country when we can call out reprehensible behavior and assign some accountability. It really is that simple.
I don't know all the facts save for the video and article...but my first impression is that there is something terribly wrong with the way these officers conducted themselves that day. Why the hell are you rolling up recklessly and so aggressively in a squad car towards a person who may have a gun according to 9-1-1 calls? I am not a police tactics expert...but I have some experience in this arena and I am pretty positive that this was a violation of training and protocols.
Teach your kids to respect authority, always. If you have a grievance, learn the appropriate process and redress it accordingly. Never disobey the instructions of an officer. Listen carefully to instructions. Say "yes Sir/Mam", "no Sir/Mam." Even if you feel wrong or slighted, there is nothing to gain by mouthing off or challenging directives. Again, if you feel you have a legitimate gripe, gather your evidence and thoughts and redress it in the appropriate forum. Why is it that we've given up on such a wide swath of our citizenry by assuming they are incapable of understanding the above?
I am not following your response. Are you speaking in a general sense or are you specifically addressing this case with the 12 year old got shot. You kind of lost me here with this response.
Here is another News Flash for you: The prosecutor is an elected official. Despite "an ethnical duty" decisions to indict or not to indict are quite often political decisions which trump any ethical duty. To make this sound as if ethics are the only consideration for a prosecutor or a D.A. is rather naïve.
Just watched the video of the 12 yo. Agree it's very sad and way too rash a confrontation. I was speaking generally. Stupid to be carrying a realistic looking gun in public, but he didn't seem to have time to do anything much, and I couldn't see that he was acting aggressively. I may challenge what role model he was emulating, but that incident happened way too fast and I agree there was a better means to confront. No one was in imminent peril. No one around. Bad police work there.
Disagree. You don't throw good cops that did nothing wrong to the wolves. Prosecutor didn't. Good on him.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-jury-wrangled-confusing-instructions
No, no one has.
Ignore it totally is not very ambiguous...but then he had to make it ambiguous with the other claptrap.
It would be interesting to do a poll of the protestors to see exactly how knowledgeable they are of the facts. I have a feeling that most of them know more than you think they do.
