[secretsquirrel]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

It must be said that Brown was in the process of trying to change his status of being unarmed that escalated matters in the first place, by struggling to grab the officer's weapon. That's a significant thing that is conveniently left out by a lot of people, especially when they try and inflame the situation further by saying stuff like " he was shot for jaywalking", or "he was shot for roughing up a store clerk and stealing cigars", or even "he was shot for being black".

No, he took things down the path of no return the moment he went for the officers gun.

He may have been profiled by the police because he was black, he may have been stopped by the cop initially for jaywalking. Those by themselves do not get you shot.

As a white guy, I admit I dont know what it's like to be racially profiled. However, I am pretty damn sure that if I am stopped, for a crime that I did or did not commit, grabbing for a cops gun is the stupidest way to react, regardless of how innocent I think I am.

I would expect that to end badly for me, regardless of my skin color, or the cops skin color. Not because the cop is being unreasonable, but because he probably wants to survive to the end of his shift that day.

I agree. But what cop doesn't say "he went for my gun"? Lets assume (for arguments sake that he "went for his gun". You have a right to defend yourself and shoot when during a struggle, but you don't have a right (or shouldn't) after that person runs away. An unarmed man is no longer a threat enough to use deadly force. Of course, this is assuming that he "went for his gun".

Its possible that the law does warrant a cop to shoot a person running away, but "moral law" dictates that you don't kill a man when he is no longer a threat. It similar to the fact that you can kill a man for running out of your yard with a stolen TV in Texas, but that doesn't make it right.

[catcher22]

Originally Posted by DoctoRx

How out of line was I to reach for my license and registration to get a gun drawn on me?

Just a suggestion, if you're EVER going to move your hands out of a cop's line if vision for ANY reason (license, registration, scratch your nutsack), COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE OFFICER BEFORE YOU MOVE. Just confirm "Ok, I'm going to grab my license and registration which is in my glovebox/console/backpack/etc"

Just communicate, move slow, and you won't get shot. Welcome to America.

Most people won't announce they're going to pull a gun on you and cops know that. Once you state your actions, it makes the situation a lot less stressful.


Back to topic, I agree with Darren Wilson's actions 100%.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

It's against their own interests. They burned down the Auto Zone store. Now where are they going to get their 26" spinners and whitewalls?

Originally Posted by kevinbahnz

if i was that clerk I would've shot him after he pushed me and walk towards me. I'm 5'5 150#s and I was in fear of my life.

We know that.

[gonzo]

No agree or disagree regarding that law here in Texas.
One thing for 100% sure is that guy knew that wasn't his house or his TV.

[Whostheboss]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Problem with the bolded part is that they aren't deciding to trash what they already owned and built up with their own two hands to bring the world's attention to it. No, what they decide to do instead is trash someone else's work. So yeah, I've got a problem with that.

You're right, if i were a store owner, i'd be very tempted to pull my shotgun if someone tried to trash it. But Going back to my point, a lot of these people stealing aren't even from the area. They're just criminals who saw an opportunity to steal which makes the innocent protesters look bad.

Originally Posted by Devious21

Because Martin Luther King believed you could change people's minds without resorting to violence. Peaceful protests. Reasoned argument. You know, challenging someone's beliefs, not the flammability of your neighbor's car.

Furthermore, he was successfull. If the black community had someone who focused on understanding and bringing people together, such as King, instead of dividing all of us, like Sharpton, I think we'd all be much better off.

Ok, yea i've seen that video a lot of times. My question to you is, tell me the last time a violent incident occurred and no one knew about it BUT it was brought to public attention with a peaceful protest? I'm all for peaceful protest but the sad parts are (1) Peaceful protest will not bring attention. (2) When people begin protesting peacefully, there will always be thugs and criminals from all races who will join the protest and mess it all up for the innocent.

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Here's the thing - you're far from alone is "hating" cops. I would only be guessing, but I think the number of people in this country who hate cops and want to kill them significantly outnumbers the number of cops who want to kill ordinary citizens.

Most cops go their entire career without discharging their weapon a single time so the trigger happy thing is completely and utterly false.

Cops are also human beings with human instincts. As an officer, you are well within your rights to discharge your weapon if there is a "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer."

100% RIGHT MY GUY! You're 100% right. But some cops want to kill.
There was a kid who was obviously intoxicated, cops go up to him and begin questioning him, knowing damn well the kid was not in his right mind... fast forward...an argument begins, the cops begin fighting with the kid and it ends up with the kid being shot dead.
My point is this: Some cops (not all) but some cops will purposely harass someone who they know will react violently so they can purposely empty their magazine. Then the cops will say..."well, the suspect charged at me and i was scared of my life so i had to defend myself" BULLSHIT.

It's the same thing when people go up to a wild animals, provoke the wild animal, harass the wild animal THEN when the wild animal retaliates, the person kills the animal and says "Well the animal attacked me, so i had to defend myself"

These fucking cops CAN AVOID THESE situations but they decide not to.

[Uber V8]

I'm not one to ever get involved in these types of discussions online. So most comments I'll keep to myself.

However, yellow journalism has been and always will be the most popular method to convey news and control the medias perception on any news event.

The image shown

View post on imgur.com

depicts what the media does not care about nor does it want to focus on. Because in the midst of all the negativity going on, two of the largest black gang members have come together for a greater cause than their own mission. They are standing together to stop the rioting and looting of their own people. There are plenty more images of this floating around, but that does not get ratings up, that's not confrontational, that won't cause a thread to be made on e90post, nobody really cares about the good being done in the midst of a storm.

I will reserve my comments in regards to the case because that is pointless here.

It's a very important image, but I doubt any of you have seen it and if you did wouldn't care to share it.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I'm not one to ever get involved in these types of discussions online. So most comments I'll keep to myself.

However, yellow journalism has been and always will be the most popular method to convey news and control the medias perception on any news event.

The image shown

View post on imgur.com

depicts what the media does not care about nor does it want to focus on. Because in the midst of all the negativity going on, two of the largest black gang members have come together for a greater cause than their own mission. They are standing together to stop the rioting and looting of their own people. There are plenty more images of this floating around, but that does not get ratings up, that's not confrontational, that won't cause a thread to be made on e90post, nobody really cares about the good being done in the midst of a storm.

I will reserve my comments in regards to the case because that is pointless here.

It's a very important image, but I doubt any of you have seen it and if you did wouldn't care to share it.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by secretsquirrel

Most people who are upset aren't resorting to violence. Its .00001 percent of people who are. Almost every black person is concerned and wonders what this means for their sons and grandchildren, yet almost no one is "resorting to violance". The fact that our kids are being killed by police for playing with a toy gun and we keep getting killed is alarming and speaks to the broader issue of why?

While I'm no fan of Sharpton, no one is, except the media and himself ; it's only now that MLK is seen as a figure of accomplishment. He went many years where people ridiculed him also.

My post was in response to person who was advocating riots and when I mentioned MLK disagreed with him that riots were an acceptable for of disagreement, he asked why.

While people disagreed with MLK in his time, I'd disagree that he's only seen as a figure of accomplishment as of recent. Besides the obvious fact that he's been recognized as such in text books for decades, MLK day is also 30+ years old. I don't think recognition of MLK's accomplishments are a recent trend.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by secretsquirrel

I agree. But what cop doesn't say "he went for my gun"? Lets assume (for arguments sake that he "went for his gun". You have a right to defend yourself and shoot when during a struggle, but you don't have a right (or shouldn't) after that person runs away. An unarmed man is no longer a threat enough to use deadly force. Of course, this is assuming that he "went for his gun".

Its possible that the law does warrant a cop to shoot a person running away, but "moral law" dictates that you don't kill a man when he is no longer a threat. It similar to the fact that you can kill a man for running out of your yard with a stolen TV in Texas, but that doesn't make it right.

I agree that someone who is retreating is a diminishing threat, not worthy of increasing force. However, as the scientific forensic evidence irrefutably proves, Brown's entry wounds were not in his back, they were in his front. Therefore, he was not running away when he was shot, he was turned around, and re-engaging / re-approaching the officer.

Struggling for a cops gun is a REALLY stupid thing to do, you might as well hold a sign that says, "I'm going to react in the most unreasonable, unpredictable, and dangerous way possible."

Having set that tone, at that point you cannot expect to be treated like a typical suspect for petty theft or anything.

You can't expect the cop to let you just leave without consequence. At that point, he had basically sealed his own fate. Even a black officer, who understood what it's like to be unfairly harassed as a kid, would be on the highest level of alert possible. A stress that most of us probably can't imagine.

If I was watching a tape of that encounter, and you paused it as Brown started to retreat, and asked me what happens next, honestly I would say, the guy is probably gonna be shot if he does anything but freeze with his hands in the air, and his back to the cop, in a least threatening posture possible. That would be true even if he was a white guy.

[Whostheboss]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I'm not one to ever get involved in these types of discussions online. So most comments I'll keep to myself.

However, yellow journalism has been and always will be the most popular method to convey news and control the medias perception on any news event.

The image shown

View post on imgur.com

depicts what the media does not care about nor does it want to focus on. Because in the midst of all the negativity going on, two of the largest black gang members have come together for a greater cause than their own mission. They are standing together to stop the rioting and looting of their own people. There are plenty more images of this floating around, but that does not get ratings up, that's not confrontational, that won't cause a thread to be made on e90post, nobody really cares about the good being done in the midst of a storm.

I will reserve my comments in regards to the case because that is pointless here.

It's a very important image, but I doubt any of you have seen it and if you did wouldn't care to share it.

+100000000000000000000000000000000

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by Whostheboss

Ok, yea i've seen that video a lot of times. My question to you is, tell me the last time a violent incident occurred and no one knew about it BUT it was brought to public attention with a peaceful protest? I'm all for peaceful protest but the sad parts are (1) Peaceful protest will not bring attention. (2) When people begin protesting peacefully, there will always be thugs and criminals from all races who will join the protest and mess it all up for the innocent.

This happens all the time...

Are you implying that you are never aware of violent incidents that occur until there's a riot about it? Did you not hear about the Zimmerman incident until the post trial riots?

You make the point that peaceful protests are ineffective. How effective are the riots? I don't think you can win with that line of reasoning. Also, your disdain for the thugs that will "mess it all up" is tempered by the fact that you agree with what they are doing.

Yes, you can change people's minds with peaceful protests, speeches, reason and argument. But it's EASIER to stir shit up, work up people's emotions and allow them to blow off steam at other people's expense.

That does not make it morally right and/or effective.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by Whostheboss

Ok, yea i've seen that video a lot of times. My question to you is, tell me the last time a violent incident occurred and no one knew about it BUT it was brought to public attention with a peaceful protest? I'm all for peaceful protest but the sad parts are (1) Peaceful protest will not bring attention. (2) When people begin protesting peacefully, there will always be thugs and criminals from all races who will join the protest and mess it all up for the innocent.

The entire gay rights movement has been accomplished with peaceful protests, despite the fact that gay men and women have been violently murdered for their sexuality. I agree with the second part 100% though. The entire community of Ferguson isn't involved in the crimes, just a few dozen people. As you pointed out it was discovered after the first round of protests that most of those engaging in looting were from towns other than Ferguson.

Originally Posted by Whostheboss

100% RIGHT MY GUY! You're 100% right. But some cops want to kill.
There was a kid who was obviously intoxicated, cops go up to him and begin questioning him, knowing damn well the kid was not in his right mind... fast forward...an argument begins, the cops begin fighting with the kid and it ends up with the kid being shot dead.
My point is this: Some cops (not all) but some cops will purposely harass someone who they know will react violently so they can purposely empty their magazine. Then the cops will say..."well, the suspect charged at me and i was scared of my life so i had to defend myself" BULLSHIT.

It's the same thing when people go up to a wild animals, provoke the wild animal, harass the wild animal THEN when the wild animal retaliates, the person kills the animal and says "Well the animal attacked me, so i had to defend myself"

These fucking cops CAN AVOID THESE situations but they decide not to.

I don't buy it that cops want to kill people. I'm sure that one or two do, but I'd put the percentage of cops who wake up in the morning wanting to kill someone and willing to bait them into their car to do it, at the same percentage of non-cops who commit murders for the same reasons: very very VERY small. And the ones that do, I agree that they shouldn't be cops.

People can't stand to not know what happened. That's why MH370, Zimmerman trial and this grand jury decision are such big news, because there are these unknowns. The law functioned exactly as it should have here considering that the evidence did not propel the incident beyond a reasonable doubt.

So considering that we will never know exactly what happened, we are left to assume what happened based upon the evidence we do have. So either 1) an officer woke up that morning wanting to kill a black kid, picked one at random, lured him into his car and then gunned him down in the street because it's something to do. Or 2) an officer asked a person who was jaywalking in the middle of the road what they were doing and Brown, having just committed a strong-arm robbery, assumed that he was about to go to jail for a long time and was desperate for a way out. Occams razor.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I'm not one to ever get involved in these types of discussions online. So most comments I'll keep to myself.

However, yellow journalism has been and always will be the most popular method to convey news and control the medias perception on any news event.

The image shown

View post on imgur.com

depicts what the media does not care about nor does it want to focus on. Because in the midst of all the negativity going on, two of the largest black gang members have come together for a greater cause than their own mission. They are standing together to stop the rioting and looting of their own people. There are plenty more images of this floating around, but that does not get ratings up, that's not confrontational, that won't cause a thread to be made on e90post, nobody really cares about the good being done in the midst of a storm.

I will reserve my comments in regards to the case because that is pointless here.

It's a very important image, but I doubt any of you have seen it and if you did wouldn't care to share it.

That is a good story. Whatever you might think about gang members, clearly in this situation, they are demonstrating some smarts. They realize what is in their best interest, and the best interest of their community. There is some long-term, big picture thinking happening here. They probably engage in more risky/dangerous activities on a regular basis than Michael Brown did, but they still have a pulse today, and he does not, because they were willing to use the muscle between their ears.

Michael Brown elected to not use his, and that's not the officer's fault.

[P1]

Just like the "Occupy Wall Street" had zero effect, these riots/looting/protesting will have zero result, too. It will, unfortunately, only be detrimental to blacks and further the stereotype. And when the wretched media will find something else to report on, it'll be just another day for these folks.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I agree that someone who is retreating is a diminishing threat, not worthy of increasing force. However, as the scientific forensic evidence irrefutably proves, Brown's entry wounds were not in his back, they were in his front. Therefore, he was not running away when he was shot, he was turned around, and re-engaging / re-approaching the officer.

Struggling for a cops gun is a REALLY stupid thing to do, you might as well hold a sign that says, "I'm going to react in the most unreasonable, unpredictable, and dangerous way possible."

Having set that tone, at that point you cannot expect to be treated like a typical suspect for petty theft or anything.

You can't expect the cop to let you just leave without consequence. At that point, he had basically sealed his own fate. Even a black officer, who understood what it's like to be unfairly harassed as a kid, would be on the highest level of alert possible. A stress that most of us probably can't imagine.

If I was watching a tape of that encounter, and you paused it as Brown started to retreat, and asked me what happens next, honestly I would say, the guy is probably gonna be shot if he does anything but freeze with his hands in the air, and his back to the cop, in a least threatening posture possible. That would be true even if he was a white guy.

What people forget is that if I'm a cop and someone goes for my gun and hits me in my car, and I'm assuming he would have killed me had he actually gotten the gun, I now have to wonder what he might do to anyone who gets in his way while he's trying to run away from me. Semi-irrelevant point though because Brown was shot from the front.

[F1Venom]

I'm in St. Louis county and it's pretty wild. I haven't seen anything first hand though.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I'm not one to ever get involved in these types of discussions online. So most comments I'll keep to myself.

However, yellow journalism has been and always will be the most popular method to convey news and control the medias perception on any news event.

The image shown

View post on imgur.com

depicts what the media does not care about nor does it want to focus on. Because in the midst of all the negativity going on, two of the largest black gang members have come together for a greater cause than their own mission. They are standing together to stop the rioting and looting of their own people. There are plenty more images of this floating around, but that does not get ratings up, that's not confrontational, that won't cause a thread to be made on e90post, nobody really cares about the good being done in the midst of a storm.

I will reserve my comments in regards to the case because that is pointless here.

It's a very important image, but I doubt any of you have seen it and if you did wouldn't care to share it.

While many images can be faked and modified, I'd like to believe that one is real. And if so, that's awesome. Because that's what should happen. Riots aren't the answer and if people stand up and stop them, then excellent! Thanks for sharing.

[kevinbahnz]

Originally Posted by grimlock

We know that.

Good memory my friend. hahaa

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Whostheboss

100% RIGHT MY GUY! You're 100% right. But some cops want to kill.
There was a kid who was obviously intoxicated, cops go up to him and begin questioning him, knowing damn well the kid was not in his right mind... fast forward...an argument begins, the cops begin fighting with the kid and it ends up with the kid being shot dead.
My point is this: Some cops (not all) but some cops will purposely harass someone who they know will react violently so they can purposely empty their magazine. Then the cops will say..."well, the suspect charged at me and i was scared of my life so i had to defend myself" BULLSHIT.

It's the same thing when people go up to a wild animals, provoke the wild animal, harass the wild animal THEN when the wild animal retaliates, the person kills the animal and says "Well the animal attacked me, so i had to defend myself"

These fucking cops CAN AVOID THESE situations but they decide not to.

I do want to just highlight this statement because I don't understand it. So, in your example, there is a kid who was obviously intoxicated (read: drunk and disorderly) which is against the law. And your suggestion is that cops, who are supposed to enforce the law, are to AVOID these types of situations? Have I understood this correctly?


And so what should be done with these people "who they know will react violently"? Should they just be left alone to harm some innocent person when they ultimately do react? I'm A-ok with them stepping up to these types of people...no excuse for violent behavior and if these people want to cleanse themselves from the gene pool, well, by all means.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by PINeely

What people forget is that if I'm a cop and someone goes for my gun and hits me in my car, and I'm assuming he would have killed me had he actually gotten the gun, I now have to wonder what he might do to anyone who gets in his way while he's trying to run away from me. Semi-irrelevant point though because Brown was shot from the front.

+1 Excellent point.

Even if the threat to the cops life is diminishing as he retreats, he's clearly proven that nothing is off limits to him, and he is about as dangerous and unpredictable as you can get. The threat to everyone else in the area is now going thru the roof. At that point, if he failed to obey commands to freeze, you could justify shooting him in the back as he got farther away from you, just to protect the other innocent citizens around.

[gonzo]

No love or hate for the police myself, but a bit of a lean towards not fond of.
With that said, to think for one second that police want to kill is beyond absurd.
I'm certain there have been and probably will be bad apples that graduate police academy and are issued a firearm.
Killing a person changes your soul.

Put yourself in their shoes, especially large urban patrols.
It goes from getting fluffy out of a tree and getting a glass of iced tea from the grateful old lady to guns, violence and people wanting to cut your throat.
Repeat...day after day after day.
For how much salary?

[DoctoRx]

Originally Posted by catcher22

Just a suggestion, COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE OFFICER BEFORE YOU MOVE. Just confirm "Ok, I'm going to grab my license and registration which is in my glovebox/console/backpack/etc"

Back to topic, I agree with Darren Wilson's actions 100%.

I don't disagree with you on that part. I typically will verbally announce my actions at all times because I know what the initial thought is when they see someone my age driving a fancy car (I've been through Lex, Jag, MB, and now own an e92 - became a doctor at 23 and LOVE cars). Even in a lab coat or full suit I've been stopped like I'm a career criminal. I typically do what you've stated, and slip my hospital ID in with my license and registration and it's cut down significantly on issues.