Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Levi]

I don't see what it matters if he committed robbery or not.  The punishment for robbery is not to be shot and killed.

[BurnedToast]

I don't see what it matters if he committed robbery or not.  The punishment for robbery is not to be shot and killed.

This is the kind of bullshit I hate. He was not shot and killed for robbing a store. He was shot and killed in self defense after charging the officer.

As for why it matters, his family is trying to portray him as some sort of saintly "gentle giant" who would never, ever attack a police officer. Then we have a video of him just a few minutes earlier robbing a store and threatening the store owner. You don't see how that's relevant?

[nenjin]

I don't see what it matters if he committed robbery or not.  The punishment for robbery is not to be shot and killed.

This is the kind of bullshit I hate. He was not shot and killed for robbing a store. He was shot and killed in self defense after charging the officer.

And you're sitting here telling us the reason it's ok he got shot and killed for a different incident is because he once committed a crime. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying shit about that store robbery. But do go on continuing to justify his shooting while acting like you're not.

[smeeprocket]

The officer in question knew nothing about the robbery. He stopped Brown and his friend because they were black. He was doing what all racist cops do, giving shit to people for the color of their skin.

Not particularly unusual to shoot an unarmed black person either, tbh. This story got a lot of coverage, but this is constantly happening nationwide. This is 1 story among hundreds of thousands.

Incidentally, does anyone else find it interesting that 9 out of the 12 jurors on the grand jury were... white?

[TamerVirus]

With so many conflicting reports, I feel that maybe 50 years from now, this whole event will be made into a movie in the style of Rashomon

[Knit tie]

Quick question: why do people consider the US law enforcement to be so bad? Last time, they accidentally killed one guy. One guy. Not one hundred guys, not one thousand guys, one. Guy. And that's it, really. Cannot that be relegated to just an unfortatunate accident? You have individual corrupt and/or incompetent police officers, sure, but why rage against the system when it's working mostly fine, unlike in so many other countries?

[andrea]

from what I can gather, it is not a single accident, but it happens all the time. It just not always ends in riots which make international or even national news.

and also, the problem is that the system is protecting those corrupt and/or incompetent officials, to a degree that makes people uncomfortable

disclaimer: not US, my main source on the topic is this board

[penguinofhonor]

.

[DJ]

Quick question: why do people consider the US law enforcement to be so bad? Last time, they accidentally killed one guy. One guy. Not one hundred guys, not one thousand guys, one. Guy. And that's it, really. Cannot that be relegated to just an unfortatunate accident? You have individual corrupt and/or incompetent police officers, sure, but why rage against the system when it's working mostly fine, unlike in so many other countries?

One?
http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Also, it's perfectly reasonable that some bad people will make their way into the police force. What's not reasonable is that the system will cover their misdeeds, which makes the whole system bad.

[smeeprocket]

Quick question: why do people consider the US law enforcement to be so bad? Last time, they accidentally killed one guy. One guy. Not one hundred guys, not one thousand guys, one. Guy. And that's it, really. Cannot that be relegated to just an unfortatunate accident? You have individual corrupt and/or incompetent police officers, sure, but why rage against the system when it's working mostly fine, unlike in so many other countries?

1 guy, lol.

They kill one or two unarmed black guys quite often. It's a running theme, as is no trials, not being fired, not having any repercussions whatsoever.

The best one I've heard was the black kid who somehow shot himself in the head while handcuffed in the back of a police car after being searched twice and calling his girlfriend and telling her he would see her at the police station.

One does not shoot an unarmed person on accident. Cops generally don't make accidents with guns (unless it's in the direction of black teenagers I suppose.)

The system is broken, people are justifiably angry.

But hey, everyone could be more like white kids and riot because their favorite coach got in trouble for covering up a massive child rape conspiracy.

[BurnedToast]

I don't see what it matters if he committed robbery or not.  The punishment for robbery is not to be shot and killed.

This is the kind of bullshit I hate. He was not shot and killed for robbing a store. He was shot and killed in self defense after charging the officer.

And you're sitting here telling us the reason it's ok he got shot and killed for a different incident is because he once committed a crime. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying shit about that store robbery. But do go on continuing to justify his shooting while acting like you're not.

I'm not pretending I'm not justifying his shooting - I'll come right out and say it, based on the evidence I've seen and heard, I believe the police officer was justified in shooting michael brown in self defense. The jury seems to have agreed with me

The robbery is not why he was shot, though. I don't, for example, think he should have been shot and killed if he had just complied with the officer. Arrested? yes. Shot? of course not.

Similarly, if he had never robbed the store at all (but had still assaulted the officer for some reason, then charged him when he realized escape was impossible) I still think the shooting would have been justified self defense.

So I'm not really completely sure what point you're trying to make. The robbery is (probably) the reason he assaulted the officer, which is the reason he was shot. Despite being separate incidents, they are very obviously related.

The officer in question knew nothing about the robbery. He stopped Brown and his friend because they were black. He was doing what all racist cops do, giving shit to people for the color of their skin.

Not particularly unusual to shoot an unarmed black person either, tbh. This story got a lot of coverage, but this is constantly happening nationwide. This is 1 story among hundreds of thousands.

Incidentally, does anyone else find it interesting that 9 out of the 12 jurors on the grand jury were... white?

it's my understanding that he knew about the robbery (it had been broadcast over the radio), but didn't realize michael brown was the suspect at first. He realized it after a few moments, and reversed which is when the assault happened.

Was the original stop for them walking in the street racist? I don't know (and I suppose nobody but the officer really knows) but I have to say that yes, there probably was a racial element to it, and it's terrible unfortunate that such things happen, and that yes we should consider that when judging the events that followed.

As for the jury, no - the makeup of the jury corresponds with the racial makup of st. louis county (which is where the jury was drawn from). Unless you're suggesting blacks should get all black juries instead of properly proportioned juries or something like that?

[smeeprocket]

I don't see what it matters if he committed robbery or not.  The punishment for robbery is not to be shot and killed.

This is the kind of bullshit I hate. He was not shot and killed for robbing a store. He was shot and killed in self defense after charging the officer.

And you're sitting here telling us the reason it's ok he got shot and killed for a different incident is because he once committed a crime. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying shit about that store robbery. But do go on continuing to justify his shooting while acting like you're not.

I'm not pretending I'm not justifying his shooting - I'll come right out and say it, based on the evidence I've seen and heard, I believe the police officer was justified in shooting michael brown in self defense. The jury seems to have agreed with me

The robbery is not why he was shot, though. I don't, for example, think he should have been shot and killed if he had just complied with the officer. Arrested? yes. Shot? of course not.

Similarly, if he had never robbed the store at all (but had still assaulted the officer for some reason, then charged him when he realized escape was impossible) I still think the shooting would have been justified self defense.

So I'm not really completely sure what point you're trying to make. The robbery is (probably) the reason he assaulted the officer, which is the reason he was shot. Despite being separate incidents, they are very obviously related.

The officer in question knew nothing about the robbery. He stopped Brown and his friend because they were black. He was doing what all racist cops do, giving shit to people for the color of their skin.

Not particularly unusual to shoot an unarmed black person either, tbh. This story got a lot of coverage, but this is constantly happening nationwide. This is 1 story among hundreds of thousands.

Incidentally, does anyone else find it interesting that 9 out of the 12 jurors on the grand jury were... white?

it's my understanding that he knew about the robbery (it had been broadcast over the radio), but didn't realize michael brown was the suspect at first. He realized it after a few moments, and reversed which is when the assault happened.

Was the original stop for them walking in the street racist? I don't know (and I suppose nobody but the officer really knows) but I have to say that yes, there probably was a racial element to it, and it's terrible unfortunate that such things happen, and that yes we should consider that when judging the events that followed.

As for the jury, no - the makeup of the jury corresponds with the racial makup of st. louis county (which is where the jury was drawn from). Unless you're suggesting blacks should get all black juries instead of properly proportioned juries or something like that?

Actual the original report was that he hadn't heard about the robbery. The police changed their position on that later.

What I'm saying is, if you have a broken system run by racist white people, and you instate a majority of white people who may also be racist to decide whether or not a trial even happens, you are just doubling down on your racism and not making a serious effort try and either diffuse the situation or even have any sort of semblance of justice.

White juries are pretty racist statistically. Looking at conviction rates, and that's not even counting the racism of white judges, if you look at sentencing stats. You can't fix the system if you just put forth more of the same.

But he never, per witnesses, assaulted the officer.

On the other hand, this officer is a known racist, he had that crap up all over his facebook page. His allies are the KKK currently, they are really backing this guy up.

[nenjin]

....

Then please stop mentioning the previous incident. If it doesn't have any bearing on his shooting, it doesn't have any bearing. Bringing it up continually gives the appearance you think he had it coming because of the robbery.

[BurnedToast]

....

Then please stop mentioning the previous incident. If it doesn't have any bearing on his shooting, it doesn't have any bearing. Bringing it up continually gives the appearance you think he had it coming because of the robbery.

But it does have some bearing. It's not the reason he was shot, and it does not mean he deserved to die, but it is related.

If you ignore the previous incident (which is only previous by about 10 minutes) you can present the narrative that he was just some poor innocent angel and the racist officer just decided to bag himself a negro and gunned him down for no reason. After all, why would an innocent man assault a police officer? Why would he run? It must be the evil cops making up stories!

But if we look at it in context, we can see that he just committed theft. We know he's willing to threaten someone (he's very obviously threatening the store owner in the video). We now know he has a reason to assault the officer and try to flee - he does not want to be arrested for the theft he committed literally 10 minutes ago, which is certainly fresh on his mind. It gives us a more accurate picture of the situation so we can better judge the events that occurred.

Just because the previous event does not fit the narrative you want to be true does not mean we should throw it out completely and ignore it happened.

[Sheb]

Wasn't that video from months before? And not even a theft?