Yes. The police seemed to be walking past the media area where many of the media-types had been parked. It could easily be assumed that several of the lame stream media-types were trying to provoke a response from any one of a multitude of officers who were walking by. The media-types wouldn’t be publishing their failed attempts. There would be no money in it because no one would buy them.
One officer responded improperly, the LSM got their pictures, the media made some money, the officer will probably be disciplined, the LSM will look for another over-worked officer to harass. Life goes on.
The media-types never intend to get into a position where they think they’ll actually need to resort to self-defense. But sometimes they miscalculate and lose their heads.
The cops said he was holding a knife in the overhand position. I sure didn’t see that. Looks to me like just another unwarranted murder committed by police.
Nope. Try learning to think, rather than spouting meaningless platitudes. Someone is only a victim if something wrong is done to them, and killing someone in self defence is not wrong.
I like how you keep saying it makes no sense that Brown ran back towards Wilson in the first place. It makes no less sense than attacking him in the first place, or for that matter for Wilson to shoot him for no reason. Whatever the truth here is, someone (or more than one) did something that makes no sense. At the minute, we know that Brown did at least one such thing - drawing attention to himself just after having robbed a store - and have good evidence that he also attacked Wilson. So, rather than assuming that he for a third time acted irrationally by running at Wilson (something at least one witness has claimed), you assume instead that it was the policeman who acted irrationally. Why?
The third statement doesn’t follow from the first two. Did you miss the part where he ran at them screaming for them to shoot him? Or do you somehow think that if someone did that to you, you wouldn’t feel threatened?
Oh, it was you who said there was always time to stop and think before shooting. That video shows you exactly how much time there is - almost none - to decide in. If it turns out he was unarmed, it will look a little worse for the cops, but I can’t blame them for defending themselves against someone charging them and screaming.
I think it’s wrong that CNN is stopping the video right before the assailant rushes the cop and then commenting that the cops are the bad guys in this. I’ve never really watched CNN before but they really seem to be very biased.
You mean try learning to think like you. Can’t do that. I don’t make decisions based on my emotional needs. I like logic. Just because YOU don’t think Brown was wrongly executed doesn’t mean he wasn’t. If he was, he’s a victim. And he was. Clearly, logically, and non-emotionally.
It makes PERFECT sense that Brown attacked Wilson at first because he didn’t want to be arrested. It makes PERFECT sense that Wilson shot him because he was pissed off about being punched in the face. It makes ZERO sense that Brown would first act to save his life by running away from the gun, then suddenly, inexplicably, act to completely jeopardize his life by running into a firing gun.
But it’s clear you’re thinking emotionally and looking for any reason to exonerate the cop, rather than objectively and looking at the facts.
Your posts have no relation to logic, and you don’t know what words mean. For example, an individual cannot “execute” someone, only a state - or possibly an organisation, if you want to call mob hits executions. Not an individual.
It makes no sense whatsoever to say that someone attacked a cop to avoid being arrested, on the contrary, that makes it more likely that they will be arrested.
And if you really think he was running away when shot, explain how he was shot in the top and front of his head… It’s simply not possible. He was coming back. There is literally no other option, based on physics.
Not really, as I don’t need a reason to exonerate him - as far as I’m concerned he’s innocent until proven otherwise. Although, I do have a strong emotional reaction to presuming someone’s guilt without evidence - it disgusts me. Especially when they have claimed to be a victim of crime, such as Wilson, or for that matter George Zimmerman. The rush to find any scrap of information that might possibly, if distorted and misinterpreted, incriminate them, and the glee with which the lynch mob types pounce on it, is abhorrent.
Yet you’ve dreamed up ridiculous scenarios where the officer is guilty of murder because stretching and twisting the facts, beyond reorganization, leaves no other possible outcome and then you call it “logic.”
That’s a semantic. You’re arguing over the meaning of words. You KNOW what I mean by “execute”. That Brown was killed summarily. Use another word if it makes you feel better. You seem to be all about your feelings, anyway.
Not if you already know you’ve committed a crime and there’s no doubt you’re going to be arrested. THEN you’d attack a cop to try to incapacitate him so you could get away.
I never said he was running away WHEN SHOT. I said he started to run away, then stopped and turned around. Most likely to surrender. It was his only chance to avoid getting shot further.
You seem all too ready to presume Brown (and probably, Trayvon’s) guilt in finding their shootings justified. I mean, the shootings can’t be justified unless Brown and Martin were guilt of something, right?
Yeah, I feel that using unnecessarily inflammatory words like “execute” is harmful, and is deliberate well-poisoning on your part. Use a neutral word, like “kill”.
And that’s what you consider logic is it? That the best way to avoid arrest is to commit a further felony?
As far as we can tell from the evidence, he wasn’t shot at any point until he turned round - although the other autopsies, or actual witness statements (to the police or court, not the media) may change that. So, what reason did he have to turn back - especially if, as you claim, his motivation was escaping arrest? Your scenario simply makes no sense. If someone wanted to avoid being shot, getting further away as quickly as possible would be the sensible thing to do, especially if already fleeing.
What crimes are they accused of? And, more importantly, why accuse them of any when they’re dead, and can’t answer for them? I don’t think you understand how this all works… They are not being investigated, Wilson is, and Zimmerman was. They are the ones who need the protection provided by presumption of innocence.
If one absolutely doesn’t want to be arrested but know they will, then yes, I can see them deciding to attack the cop. I didn’t say I AGREE with the logic. Just that I can see the logic.
That’s a logical question. Well Wilson’s unofficial statement is that he yelled, “freeze” and that made Brown stop. Witness accounts say Wilson was shooting at him from behind. If that’s true, then I think Brown probably felt the bullets whizzing by him (all misses) and that made him stop.
Same point, in order to find a particular shooting justified, the ones who were shot had to be guilty of something. So to say a shooter was justified is the same as saying the one who was shot was guilty.
I only caught the last couple of pages: sorry if this is a repeat: Vox, Aug 15: How we’d cover Ferguson if it happened in another country
[INDENT]The crisis began a week ago in Ferguson, a remote Missouri village that has been a hotbed of sectarian tension. State security forces shot and killed an unarmed man, which regional analysts say has angered the local population by surfacing deep-seated sectarian grievances. Regime security forces cracked down brutally on largely peaceful protests, worsening the crisis.
America has been roiled by political instability and protests in recent years, which analysts warn can create fertile ground for extremists.
Missouri, far-removed from the glistening capital city of Washington, is ostensibly ruled by a charismatic but troubled official named Jay Nixon, who has appeared unable to successfully intervene and has resisted efforts at mediation from central government officials. Complicating matters, President Obama is himself a member of the minority sect protesting in Ferguson, which is ruled overwhelmingly by members of America’s majority “white people” sect. [/INDENT] --------
Aug 18th: Why MSNBC’s Chris Hayes almost got maced in Ferguson: If the cops can fuck with the media, it sends a signal to those who don’t have their protection. There are 2 sorts of police forces: they are those that seek to uphold the law and those whose purpose is to protect a regime. The latter is common in the third world. It appears to apply in Ferguson MO as well.
Today, TPM: ACLU Demands Removal Of Officer Who Told Protestor: ‘I Will Kill You’. [INDENT]The ACLU cited a YouTube clip of a longer video taken from the streets in Ferguson posted by a user tagged as Rebelutionary_Z. As protesters move toward some commotion, they are approached by a uniformed officer with his firearm raised.
“I will fucking kill you,” the officer says. “Get back.”[/INDENT] In my opinion that officer should be put on administrative leave and his continued employment should be subject to skeptical review.
How are either of those stretching facts? They’re not even facts nor were they meant to be. They’re meant to be logical speculation based on facts. It is a fact that Brown was killed. It is a fact that he first ran and then stopped. My speculation is on the circumstances surrounding those facts.
I don’t give a shit about unofficial statements. Can you link me to official statements from witnesses, and to any evidence for bullets missing
Why do you say they had to be guilty of something? I mean, there’s strong evidence that they were, but that’s not relevant. All that matters is their actions, the actions of the shooter, and the latter’s state of mind. The state of mind of the person killed is irrelevant.
So, again, why do you assume I’m concerned with their guilt?
The article I read about this, which someone linked to earlier in the thread, said he had been suspended. I think everyone here believes that’s the right thing to do.
CNN seems to have gone to hell lately. It’s almost as if they want the unrest to continue so they have something to blab about.
Second, I really what to know what happened in the few minutes prior to that cops statement. Preferably a video of it. I can think of a lot of things that might mitigate that statement.
What the hell difference does it make? Pretty much ALL parties agree that Brown ran and then stopped. The autopsy says all the shots were in the front. What is your dispute with that?
Because you have to decide the one who was shot did something wrong before you can declare a shooter justified. To be more specific, why do you so quickly believe Brown charged into Wilson’s gun?