Ferguson: Maybe time to start asking the most pertinent questions?

[Buttercup]

Hi, Friend.

1) Does it make any sense for an officer with a record of six years of a flawless record (4 years within the very own community in which he was raised); no complaints whatsoever of abusing his authority by anyone; never having discharged his duty weapon, ever....to just, for no apparent reason at all, fire upon an 18yo (shot 6 times by the latest autopsy), for "jaywalking"? Really? Shooting an 18yo, in the back, for raising his hands, falling to his knees in surrender for arrest..for jaywalking? That's the current narrative and accountants from the "dozens" of eyewitnesses. Michael Brown (the "teenager") was shot and killed for no explicable reason at all.

Was Officer Darren Wilson just having a bad day, snapped, and decided to shoot an unarmed man in broad daylight at mid-day, just because he felt like it?

Admittedly, we citizens are at the mercy of the media to keep us informed of the developing details (factual and conjectured) regarding what happened that day and it's fair to assume that we may never know fully the entire scope of the situation. What we do know is that a young man was shot and killed and from all accounts was unarmed with no gun, no knife, no broken bottle, no AR-15 at his disposal. From what we've been told, Mr. Wilson's life was not in danger. It doesn't make sense, but from what little information the public has received so far, how can we come to a conclusion other than this was an act of murder, plain and simple?

2) Reputedly, there were reported as fact, literally "dozens" of eyewitnesses to the ongoing event or shooting. "Dozens". Yet not one eyewitness had the presence of mind to video this happening on this day's knowable and nearly ubiquitous cellphones? In 2014? No one? Not one? In broad daylight, middle of the day, in the middle of a traveled street. No one? Possible, but highly unlikely in 2014.

3) Is there any cruiser footage to publicly share that may be relevant? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But the question IS relevant if any footage actually exists. A simple "yes" or "no" would help here.

It is an odd thing that no one filmed the incident but I'm not exactly quick with whipping my phone into camera mode from my back pocket and I'd probably be too shocked to think about it in the flash the shooting happened anyway. Besides, ever since Rodney King, I'm not so convinced of the infallibility of video evidence. There are communities that require officers to wear a camera on their uniform now and from what I can tell, abuse and complaint instances have gone down in number.

 

[esmith]

In short, the allegation that a (white) police officer (now known to be Officer Darren Wilson) shot in the back, an 18yo unarmed, (black) man (identified as Michael Brown) in the middle of the street at mid-day while his (the 18yo) arms were raised in a sign of surrender.

The white officer submitted his report that an attempt to seize his service gun, when shoved into his cruiser by the (eventual) victim, was the initial provocation leading to the eventual deadly result. The officer cited his rationale for stopping this 18yo and his friend/partner/cohort...essentially for jaywalking down the middle of a frequented thoroughfare at high noon.

Well now let's take a look at your false assumptions.
1. Autopsy shows that Wilson was not shot in the back and if he had his arms raised as you state why are there only bullet wounds in the front of the arms.

Your and others do nothing but raise the hate within the community. I put you and those that make statements before the facts known in the same realm that I put Sharpton.


Get your facts straight.

 

[ChristineES]

I think the low life take advantage of situations as the one in Fergusons, they ruin it for all, there is no excuse for stealing from shop and firing guns at innocent police and media.

I agree. I have absolutely nothing against the protests, but when people loot, they are only punishing themselves.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I found this conversation recorded on cell phone by an eyewitness at the scene to be interesting, and probably more reliable than most irate eyewitness accounts reported after-the-fact:

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

Basically, it's an eyewitness explaining to another person what happened, which involved Michael Brown rushing the officer, and continuing to come for the officer while being shot.

Even if this account is more representative of the scenario, I doubt it would make much difference to people protesting the shooting. Nor, do I think it excuses the handling of the protests or riots by the police department since the incident.

What is disturbing, is this propensity of the media and society to instantly create and accept narratives about these situations which are obviously highly rhetorical and hyperbolic. Michael Brown was 18, but wasn't a child, nor an innocent youth with a heart of gold who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, savagely gunned down in cold blood by a racist, white police officer.

The guy was a thug, had an attitude, and if this account is true in that he kept rushing the officer while being shot several times, then he was also probably on a substance which compromised his judgment and behavior.

 

[Wirey]

I found this conversation recorded on cell phone by an eyewitness at the scene to be interesting, and probably more reliable than most irate eyewitness accounts reported after-the-fact:

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

Basically, it's an eyewitness explaining to another person what happened, which involved Michael Brown rushing the officer, and continuing to come for the officer while being shot.

Even if this account is more representative of the scenario, I doubt it would make much difference to people protesting the shooting. Nor, do I think it excuses the handling of the protests or riots by the police department since the incident.

What is disturbing, is this propensity of the media and society to instantly create and accept narratives about these situations which are obviously highly rhetorical and hyperbolic. Michael Brown was 18, but wasn't a child, nor an innocent youth with a heart of gold who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, savagely gunned down in cold blood by a racist, white police officer.

The guy was a thug, had an attitude, and if this account is true in that he kept rushing the officer while being shot several times, then he was also probably on a substance which compromised his judgment and behavior.

Fruballed!

I honestly believe an investigation is necessary when a cop shoots an unarmed teenager. But let's not pretend this was some innocent little lambkins just minding his business. After openly robbing a store he was deliberately impeding traffic, not exactly a social act. And if he attacked a cop in this condition, a symbol of the society we all live in, that tells you exactly what he thought of us, too.

I know not every horse can win the race, but I also know that Atticus was right, too.

 

[Alceste]

I found this conversation recorded on cell phone by an eyewitness at the scene to be interesting, and probably more reliable than most irate eyewitness accounts reported after-the-fact:

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

Basically, it's an eyewitness explaining to another person what happened, which involved Michael Brown rushing the officer, and continuing to come for the officer while being shot.

Even if this account is more representative of the scenario, I doubt it would make much difference to people protesting the shooting. Nor, do I think it excuses the handling of the protests or riots by the police department since the incident.

What is disturbing, is this propensity of the media and society to instantly create and accept narratives about these situations which are obviously highly rhetorical and hyperbolic. Michael Brown was 18, but wasn't a child, nor an innocent youth with a heart of gold who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, savagely gunned down in cold blood by a racist, white police officer.

The guy was a thug, had an attitude, and if this account is true in that he kept rushing the officer while being shot several times, then he was also probably on a substance which compromised his judgment and behavior.

Note: this person does not say "rushing". He says "coming toward". Using a different word that implies a significant threat when the original text uses a phrase is unclear is just the kind of hyperbole you're concerned about in the media, isn't it?

 

[averageJOE]

I found this conversation recorded on cell phone by an eyewitness at the scene to be interesting, and probably more reliable than most irate eyewitness accounts reported after-the-fact:

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

Basically, it's an eyewitness explaining to another person what happened, which involved Michael Brown rushing the officer, and continuing to come for the officer while being shot.

Even if this account is more representative of the scenario, I doubt it would make much difference to people protesting the shooting. Nor, do I think it excuses the handling of the protests or riots by the police department since the incident.

What is disturbing, is this propensity of the media and society to instantly create and accept narratives about these situations which are obviously highly rhetorical and hyperbolic. Michael Brown was 18, but wasn't a child, nor an innocent youth with a heart of gold who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, savagely gunned down in cold blood by a racist, white police officer.

The guy was a thug, had an attitude, and if this account is true in that he kept rushing the officer while being shot several times, then he was also probably on a substance which compromised his judgment and behavior.

Yup. In this scenario I would have kept pulling the trigger too.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The guy was a thug, had an attitude

Translation: The guy was black.

 

[averageJOE]

Translation: The guy was black.

Please don't derail this thread too. Stick to the other one if you want to argue racism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Note: this person does not say "rushing". He says "coming toward". Using a different word that implies a significant threat when the original text uses a phrase is unclear is just the kind of hyperbole you're concerned about in the media, isn't it?

Good point. Perhaps he was casually "coming toward" the officer in an unthreatening manner while getting repeatedly shot. Regardless, I enjoy your attempted tactic of invalidating everything I wrote with a simple, flip comment. Amusing, but it doesn't actually address anything in a substantive manner.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Please don't derail this thread too. Stick to the other one if you want to argue racism.

The issue is about race.

 

[averageJOE]

The issue is about race.

OK. Got it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Translation: The guy was black.

No - translation: He just got recorded physically threatening a store clerk and stealing merchandise, and then held up cars driving down the street by unnecessarily walking in the middle of the street.

So please don't attempt to falsely attribute racism to me with your inane and thoughtless comments, as it does nothing but reveal your ignorance.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No - translation: He just got recorded physically threatening a store clerk and stealing merchandise, and then held up cars driving down the street by unnecessarily walking in the middle of the street.

So please don't attempt to falsely attribute racism to me with your inane and thoughtless comments, as it does nothing but reveal your ignorance.

How the **** do you know he was a thug with an attitude? Was there a trial that convicted him of what he was accused of? How do you know he was on drugs, did you conduct a blood test of something, where you there?

You assumed a lot and you assumed it on the basis of the color of his skin.


One thing you didn't assume was mental illness. Because when a black guy gets shot by the cop he must be a thug on drugs who deserves it but when a white guys get "accidentally shot", oh he was mentally illness and not in his right state of mind.

I am not falsely attributing racism to you I am out and out saying you are.

 

[Alceste]

Good point. Perhaps he was casually "coming toward" the officer in an unthreatening manner while getting repeatedly shot. Regardless, I enjoy your attempted tactic of invalidating everything I wrote with a simple, flip comment. Amusing, but it doesn't actually address anything in a substantive manner.

Sure it does, but succinctly. Brown was neither a devil or a saint. He was an unarmed man who was gunned down in the street by a police officer. Predictably, the police think the killing was justifiable and the victim's family and friends don't. We should avoid hyperbole both exaggerating his virtues and his flaws and focus on the elephant in the room: Should cops be gunning down unarmed people in the street? Ever? Is there any alternative to cops gunning down unarmed people in the street that is somewhat less likely to provoke protests and / or riots among the locals?

I can think of at least five things the cop could have done apart from mowing an unarmed man down in the street in a hail of bullets, particularly given that the offense the cop was attempting to correct was basically jaywalking.

Plus, even if you think Brown deserved to die for being kind of scary for a completely unarmed man, there is a serious risk of injuring or killing passers-by whenever a cop unleashes a hail of bullets in a public space. It happened in Montreal - the cops accidentally killed a totally random dude walking down the road in their rush to mow down a homeless guy who was scattering garbage. Maybe they should have tried their tazers first, wouldn't you say? De-escalation, perhaps? Temporary disengagement followed by an arrest at the suspect's home?

 

[Revoltingest]

How the **** do you know he was a thug with an attitude? Was there a trial that convicted him of what he was accused of? How do you know he was on drugs, did you conduct a blood test of something, where you there?

You assumed a lot and you assumed it on the basis of the color of his skin.


One thing you didn't assume was mental illness. Because when a black guy gets shot by the cop he must be a thug on drugs who deserves it but when a white guys get "accidentally shot", oh he was mentally illness and not in his right state of mind.

I am not falsely attributing racism to you I am out and out saying you are.

I think I've figured out why you bring up drugs, when he never mentioned them.
It's clear that you're reading many infuriating posts in reddit, & you're confusing
those posts with his (& mine). You really should stay away from that site. It rots
the brain.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think I've figured out why you bring up drugs, when he never mentioned them.
It's clear that you're reading many infuriating posts in reddit, & you're confusing
those posts with his (& mine). You really should stay away from that site. It rots
the brain.

He didn't mention drugs? So what is it are you blind or are you just incapable of rational thought?

The guy was a thug, had an attitude, and if this account is true in that he kept rushing the officer while being shot several times, then he was also probably on a substance which compromised his judgment and behavior.

 

[Revoltingest]

He didn't mention drugs? So what is it are you blind or are you just incapable of rational thought?

Could'a been booze.
You're exaggerating his post a bit.
Reddit can do that to people.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Could'a been booze.
You're exaggerating his post a bit.
Reddit can do that to people.

Yeah right. You know very well what he meant. People like you are exactly why we need a People of Color DIR so decent people can have a discussion about racial issue without being bother by racist vermin.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, we know that you only dislike Kilgore cuz he's white, privileged & male.
How do we know this fact? It's obvious!

OK, OK...enuf ironic mirth....I'll stop derailing the thread now.