He may have stolen a box of cigars from a convenience store and roughed up (though not injured) a clerk in the process, so obviously the police were justified in shooting him in the back, leaving his dead body on the street for hours, and pointing assault weapons at protesters and otherwise acting like the paramilitary forces of some third world junta.
There.
…and you base this off of your extensive experience in the Ferguson PD?
There’s a lot that the Ferguson PD did incorrectly in handling this whole situation, putting a drum type lid on all discussion of the incident was one of those things. I’m not surprised they didn’t come out with this initially.
The entire existence of the Confederacy was based on treasonous and violent rebellion against the legitimate government. It stood for everything I don’t.
Ever since the Clinton years I classify that as a question better not asked.
Good. So when does the manhunt begin?
So you’re saying that the cops decided to harass some black guys, had an exchange with them that resulted in a physical altercation and shooting, and then later on it was determined that, “Oh wait, these guys robbed a gas station 10 minutes ago”.
It’s all just coincidence? :smack:
Their MO so far appears to be CYA and overreaction, so I would be surprised.
Why is that unfortunate? If this guy was a thug who was justifiably shot that’s good news, right?
(Note: I’m not saying robbing the store justifies him being shot.)
It means rather than shooting an innocent man because… racism. The cops actually might have been doing their jobs all along.
Note that we don’t know this yet for sure. But this news certainly looks like that’s more likely than before. Why isn’t that good news?
That would only be bad news to someone really hoping that the cops are evil racists and is disappointed that they aren’t.
Again, why would this be unfortunate if it’s true?
Just so I’m clear, your belief is that the officer interaction with the two black guys was random harassment that went bad, and after the fact somebody else at the station put two and two together that it was the same two guys that robbed the convenience store?
Maybe take some classes in remedial English and basic logic and ask that again and I’ll have some basic idea what you’re trying to say. But to answer the last part of your question: you and G-SE are the racists. Smapti is still a fascist.
Thats what I asked!
The remainder of the post that you quoted from explained why it’s unfortunate. It’s unfortunate because that fact is going to be used as a blanket justification for the shooting, and the police overreaction.
No, I don’t believe I ever said “random harassment.” The officer may have been responding to the robbery.
And I don’t have the motivation to find it again, but somewhere there are photos of the reports. On one of them (don’t remember which one, the shooting or the robbery) there is a statement to the effect of “this guy appears to have been associated in some way with this other report.”
So in that case, yes it would appear that the association was made after the fact.
This seems reasonable to me. Not that they should shoot every felon who flees. But I can certainly imagine circumstances where it would be appropriate.
Let’s say he robbed the store. Cop rolls up to question him. He reaches into the cop car, beats the cop, and tries to get the cops gun. He fails to grab it. He runs away. I’d say shooting him in the back is a reasonable thing to do at that point.
It has a good chance of saving the life of the next person to encounter him. If he’s so far gone he’s assaulting cops who knows what he’d do.
Again, I note that this is theoretical. We don’t yet know if this is what happened. But I can certainly think of plausible scenarios where shooting him in the back is reasonable.
Fine. If that’s what you meant.
You wrote that it was unfortunate all on it’s own. Then you went on to state that it was even more unfortunate that people would use it to justify the shooting.
If you didn’t mean it was unfortunate other than this I agree. In fact, it’s good news.
I can’t say I’m anywhere near the biggest WWII buff, but by 1945? Pretty damn. I wouldn’t have thought you’d have been passed on even before that point, honestly. Open to correction, though.
I doubt it.
As noted, the cops have been very tight-lipped in general about the whole story. But in addition, suppose the cops announced upfront that he was a potential robbery suspect and it turned out that he was a choir boy who had nothing to do with the robbery and it was another big guy who looked like him. Everyone and his brother - possibly including you - would have been all over them for attempting to smear the victim, and people would have gotten even more riled up than they currently are.
At this point they seem pretty confident that he was the guy. But that doesn’t mean they were at the time, even if that was the basis for the controntation.
I’m looking forward to the dispatch tapes being released.
And on top of that, someone mentioned above…if he thought he was contacting felony suspects, why the hell wasn’t he treating it as a felony stop?
insults and ignorance,what the left does best.one of these days you idiots may get enough intelligence to relize who the real racists are
With that guy in New York getting choked to death while selling loose cigarettes, and Brown now suspected of stealing a box of cigars, is there any remaining doubt that smoking kills?
Well, no. Now it is “the evil white cop harasses an innocent black boy on his way from the committing a robbery to his grandmother’s and shoots him dead”