How does vandalism and looting accomplish anything???

[brunette8706]

Where's the proof he touched the cops gun?

Because the cop who killed him said so? Cops are above lying?

*
That is why there was a struggle. According to police the perp tried to steal his gun.

 

[RadioNate]

I can't believe how many people just accept whatever the cops say. Police can lie, especially to protect their own. Cops overreacting is sadly common, especially when it's a white cop and a non-white suspect.

I agree.

Witness statements do not know what happened. According to those I have read, Michael Brown was outside the police car and it appeared that the officer was pulling Brown into the car window. There was some sort of altercation that witnesses could not identify. But the witness states that it did not look like Brown was reaching for the gun. The gun fired and Brown took that opportunity to run away. The officer exited the vehicle and chased after Brown, shooting him. The last witness statement I heard has Brown turning around, hands up and falling to his knees. The officer then shot him several more times.

The Ferguson police chief has stated that Brown was NOT stopped as a robbery suspect. So really, the robbery is a distraction because the officer wasn't pursuing a suspect in a crime. The officer had no reason to suspect Brown as a perpetrator of a crime at the time he stopped him.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Where are the nationwide statistics of cops shot in line of duty and sometimes K-9 dogs too? Of those numbers how many have been by non-caucasians ?

Getting so sick of this

 

[usd2bmd]

*
So your assertion is that the cop was "over-reacting?

There are three sides to every story. theirs, yours and the truth.

The officer says he shoved him into the car and tried to take his gun. But he wasn't successful and the office shot him multiple times.

My issues with it are pretty simple. There are more witnesses that say it didn't happen that way than there are witnesses who say it did.

It's also not disputed that the police officer that shot him didn't know about the robbery. So the whole argument about him being a suspect go out the window with that ,sorry.

 

[RadioNate]

*
That is why there was a struggle. According to police the perp tried to steal his gun.

And according to other witnesses that isn't the case.

Again, police don't ever lie to protect one another? You've never heard the term "Blue Code of Silence?" These terms don't get coined with zero basis.

And really your bias is transparent. "Thug" "Perp" blah blah blah….you don't see us calling the cops "pigs" etc.

 

[usd2bmd]

Where are the nationwide statistics of cops shot in line of duty and sometimes K-9 dogs too? Of those numbers how many have been by non-caucasians ?

Getting so sick of this

Sick of what, can I ask? So if say the statistics are that a higher percentage of officers being shot in the line of duty at hands of non Caucasians than Caucasians then it's ok to profile? it's ok to stop non Caucasians for walking down the street and hassle them for no apparent reason other than they look a certain way?

That scares me, because there are truly people who think it's ok.

 

[RadioNate]

Sick of what, can I ask? So if say the statistics are that a higher percentage of officers being shot in the line of duty at hands of non Caucasians than Caucasians then it's ok to profile? it's ok to stop non Caucasians for walking down the street and hassle them for no apparent reason other than they look a certain way?

That scares me, because there are truly people who think it's ok.

It is really alarming how many white middle class Americans are prejudiced and actually honestly believe that they aren't in any way.

 

[olwyngdh]

My big question on the whole mess right now is why is it being called a robbery instead of shoplifting? Is there some legal reason I don't understand or is it for the weight the word carries making the stupid teenager stunt sound like he is a repeat hardened criminal?

 

[Viva Las Disney]

And according to other witnesses that isn't the case.

Again, police don't ever lie to protect one another? You've never heard the term "Blue Code of Silence?" These terms don't get coined with zero basis.

And really your bias is transparent. "Thug" "Perp" blah blah blah….you don't see us calling the cops "pigs" etc.

Doesn't this go both ways though?

If you assume the officers are lying to protect their own butt don't the witnesses also have a reason to protect their own butts? Reports are the store was burned down as retaliation for reporting the crime. People are shot in front of dozens of witnesses all the time and no one sees a thing because they are afraid of retaliation. I think in both circumstances people say what they are supposed to because they are afraid of what will happen if they don't.

The problem with witnesses (whether police or civilian) is they can both have outside forces influencing their testimony. Add in a media frenzy that will result in money to any eyewitness account for an on air interview and you've created a reason for anyone to lie.

 

[Viva Las Disney]

My big question on the whole mess right now is why is it being called a robbery instead of shoplifting? Is there some legal reason I don't understand or is it for the weight the word carries making the stupid teenager stunt sound like he is a repeat hardened criminal?

It's a strong arm robbery because when confronted he pushed the clerk to get out of the store, had he just grabbed the cigarettes and ran it would only have been shoplifting.

The difference between robbery and theft is always due to some form of physical confrontation.

 

[pat fan]

you don't see us calling the cops "pigs" etc.

Actually, someone did, but this has digressed beyond my original question. The majority commenting on this thread now are entrenched on one side or the other, facts be darned. That's how the rioting, IMO, and all the other stuff happens. If you can't be open to the truth, ALL truth, not your perception of it, nothing good comes of it.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Some would rather point fingers, call names, spew hate and play cards, than have a meaningful dialogue. Really sad.

 

[OurBigTrip]

I can't believe how many people just accept whatever the cops say. Police can lie, especially to protect their own. Cops overreacting is sadly common, especially when it's a white cop and a non-white suspect.

Police officers absolutely can lie - everyone can. But when I'm trying to decide whom to believe, I find it helpful to compare what I know about the parties involved. So what do we have?

Michael Brown's friend...a self-admitted thief.
Michael Brown...also a thief, and one that thought nothing of assaulting a clerk in order to steal $49 worth of cigarillos.
Darren Wilson...a police officer on the force for six years with a clean record.

So, unless/until evidence is produced that shows that the police officer is lying, I'm going to believe him. If that evidence is produced, and ballistics should provide it, I'll be the first one saying that he should be charged and tried accordingly.

As to the officer not knowing that Michael Brown was a suspect in the theft, Michael Brown didn't necessarily know that. If he was willing to assault someone to steal in the first place, I don't believe it is unreasonable to surmise that he might be willing to assault someone (the police officer) in order to keep from being arrested for the theft and previous assault.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Actually, someone did, but this has digressed beyond my original question. The majority commenting on this thread now are entrenched on one side or the other, facts be darned. That's how the rioting, IMO, and all the other stuff happens. If you can't be open to the truth, ALL truth, not your perception of it, nothing good comes of it.

Facts are unimportant to some folks...already made up their minds. It won't matter, if the incident is on tape. Divided we fall....

 

[RadioNate]

Doesn't this go both ways though?

If you assume the officers are lying to protect their own butt don't the witnesses also have a reason to protect their own butts? Reports are the store was burned down as retaliation for reporting the crime. People are shot in front of dozens of witnesses all the time and no one sees a thing because they are afraid of retaliation. I think in both circumstances people say what they are supposed to because they are afraid of what will happen if they don't.

The problem with witnesses (whether police or civilian) is they can both have outside forces influencing their testimony. Add in a media frenzy that will result in money to any eyewitness account for an on air interview and you've created a reason for anyone to lie.

The two witness I'm seeing as credible and have referenced are the 2 woman that CNN has identified so no, I don't think they have any reason to protect their own butts.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The Ferguson police chief has stated that Brown was NOT stopped as a robbery suspect. So really, the robbery is a distraction because the officer wasn't pursuing a suspect in a crime. The officer had no reason to suspect Brown as a perpetrator of a crime at the time he stopped him.

It's not a distraction at all, because 1) Michael Brown had no way of knowing that the officer wasn't stopping him for the robbery and 2) video of the robbery shows that Michael Brown was willing to commit assault, which lends credence to the officer's claim that Brown tried to take his weapon.

 

[RadioNate]

Police officers absolutely can lie - everyone can. But when I'm trying to decide whom to believe, I find it helpful to compare what I know about the parties involved. So what do we have?

Michael Brown's friend...a self-admitted thief.
Michael Brown...also a thief, and one that thought nothing of assaulting a clerk in order to steal $49 worth of cigarillos.
Darren Wilson...a police officer on the force for six years with a clean record.

So, unless/until evidence is produced that shows that the police officer is lying, I'm going to believe him. If that evidence is produced, and ballistics should provide it, I'll be the first one saying that he should be charged and tried accordingly.

As to the officer not knowing that Michael Brown was a suspect in the theft, Michael Brown didn't necessarily know that. If he was willing to assault someone to steal in the first place, I don't believe it is unreasonable to surmise that he might be willing to assault someone (the police officer) in order to keep from being arrested for the theft and previous assault.

And non of those people's witness accounts are the one I referenced.

I'm tend to believe the person with the most to lose lies the fastest.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Actually, someone did, but this has digressed beyond my original question. The majority commenting on this thread now are entrenched on one side or the other, facts be darned. That's how the rioting, IMO, and all the other stuff happens. If you can't be open to the truth, ALL truth, not your perception of it, nothing good comes of it.

It's called " Mob Mentality" us against them ...whoever us and them are. Happens in the streets and on the internet. To answer your original question: It doesn't

 

[OurBigTrip]

And really your bias is transparent. "Thug" "Perp" blah blah blah….you don't see us calling the cops "pigs" etc.

Stating a fact is not exhibiting bias. It's apparent via the video that Michael Brown was a thug.

 

[usd2bmd]

It is really alarming how many white middle class Americans are prejudiced and actually honestly believe that they aren't in any way.

Alarming and so very sad, because you can't engage them in a conversation about it because they don't see it as a bias or a problem.