Huh? Even if that person is attacking a police officer? Even if he’s going for the officer’s gun? There’s no circumstance where the cops can shoot someone unless they are armed?
At this point, the only thing we know happened that was wrong was the rioting. Rioting and looting are clearly wrong.
What the police officer did might have been wrong, or might have been completely proper. We don’t know that yet.
At this point the only appropriate thing to call “wrong” is the rioting.
I’m curious, do other posters here share this insane view that the cops shooting this person MUST be wrong, simply because it happened? If so, I get where you’re coming from, but that’s a misguided attitude.
“Miscarriage of justice” does not mean “morally wrong” or “unethical”. Not that killing an unarmed person is necessarily either of them, if it’s in self defence or defence of another. The police don’t exist to take beatings from people, and not defend themselves. Allowing that would be wrong.
Of course, neither to the police exist to shoot people who aren’t a threat, and there will be an investigation, and quite possibly a trial, to determine if that happened in this case.
You might want to try that, then. It’s pretty obvious he was pointing out that the real story is the killing of an unarmed black youth by a police officer.
I assume that by victims he is referring to the young black men who have been mistreated by police.
Say what? Where did I say that? Or imply that. Looting is fucked up. End of discussion. What happened to that kid is largely unknown, from a justice standpoint. A young kid is dead, and that is sad. If it happened the way his friend described, it’s a horror, and there can be no greater miscarriage of justice. But if it went down the way the cops say, then I don’t see the miscarriage of justice. There will be two concurrent investigations into this. One by the local police, the other by the Dept. of Justice.
So, do you know something that hasn’t been reported? Because it seems that the justice system seems to be operating just fine. So, I’ll wait to see what the investigations show. On the one hand, I lean toward the victim. He seemed to be a good kid and the cop acted rashly, meanly, or in a panic. Maybe all three. On the other hand, the friend’s story doesn’t so right to me either. So, I’ll wait.
That has nothing to do with the looters. They are vandals and thieves.
Correct. You stated it outright. (as Steophan and Debaser correctly noted)
Correct. You stated it outright. (as Steophan and Debaser correctly noted)
Correct. You stated it outright. (as Steophan and Debaser correctly noted)
Unfortunately for you, your post is still there, dumbass.
Oh yes, “you are the stupid”. Well, you are the stupiderer!! Then again, maybe you avoiding what was asked of you was the smartest course of action. The equivalent of you “stopping to dig”.
I think the problem is that people think you’re focusing on the wrong thing. The riots are bad, yes, and the rioters should be punished. But misbehavior on behalf of a police officer is a much more severe and much more important issue than misbehaving private citizens, and that’s what we should be talking about. Criminals will be criminals; that’s not news. That’s what the police are for. Cops, on the other hand, must be criminals - because a criminal cop is infinitely more dangerous than a criminal civilian. *Quis custodiet ipsos custodes *and all that.
The cops will deal with the riots. We the people will deal with the cops.
I would agree with this IF we knew that the cop did something wrong. We don’t. Which is why there are two investigations. I find it odd that so many find it so easy to assume the cop is guilty of what the dead kid’s friend said. Talk about your miscarriage of justice. Guilty! Next.
You can go ahead and assume that, but it’s clearly not what he said. He said exactly what we read. The real victims are the looters. You quoted it, so it’s odd you can’t read it.
It’s just you. Unless you think it’s vaguely racist to mention anything that a non-white person may like, along with plenty of white folks. And man, those TVs!
It’s impossible to imagine a society that doesn’t have the occasional investigation into a police shooting. Because of the nature of their jobs, these things are going to happen. Maybe this was a good shooting, maybe it wasn’t. An investigation will hopefully sort it out.
But it’s easy to imagine a society that doesn’t have looting and riots. This is far more concerning and upsetting to many people.
The other factor is that the riot hits closer to home. I can see myself being impacted by a riot. I don’t want rioting in any cities near me. I can’t see myself ever being shot by the cops.
You know why? Not because of my race. Because even if we believe the version of events Brown’s friend, they were given an order by the police and they ignored it and kept walking. I wouldn’t do something that stupid. Even if we believe the story, it was entirely preventable by the victim.
Of course, if we believe the cop’s story then it was a good shooting. But in either case it was entirely preventable.
In before “Of course not! Lots of young people of all ages like Air Jordans! Nothing racist there!”
Mind you, mags might believe it; the implication, while arguably racist, might well have been unintentional and subconscious.
ETA: well fuck. Didn’t refresh before posting. Wasn’t in before anything, alas. But glad to see my prediction was correct.
.
I don’t see how. Unless you think that Blacks are the only ones who want TVs and Air Jordans. In the news, there was a sports/sneaker store being looted.
I read Septimus’s post #10 not as an implication that those rioting and looting were the victims, but that black youth who find themselves accosted by police unjustly were the “victims” and the attempt was to focus the discussion on the perceived overall problem of racial mistreatment by police.
I could see it read the other way too, but that’s not how it came across. This silly train of thought could have easily been headed off by a a simple clarification of what that post meant, rather than many many posts claiming it did not mean something else. When multiple people misinterpret what you write, it probably wasn’t communicated optimally.
Why you would want to focus on that topic and not the immediate looting and rioting is another matter.
You must have left out some stuff, qualifiers or something, because standing alone this statement is not at all how we’ve agreed to set up our justice system.
Alas, I have great difficulty with reading words that aren’t there. And taking things out of context for no apparent purpose other than to derail a discussion.
You’re quite right: it’s not because of your race. If you were black, and faced a reasonable probability of being shot dead merely because of your race, you might weigh the relative importance of these issues differently.
I mean, seriously? He kept walking, so it was his fault he got killed? That is Smapti-level police apoligism.
