Ferguson: Moving on..why none of this will mater...

[Alceste]

Can you please bring up the post where I say Brown was "asking for it" because he was black?

I'm not seeing anybody saying that out loud, but there is a definite double standard among Wilson's defenders. Pejoratives for Brown (thug, POS, criminal, etc) pour out of them like candy from a busted pinata, but if anyone suggests Wilson might have behaved badly, suddenly we "don't have enough information" to figure out whether or not he's a thug or a POS. It's absurd, to be honest. Especially when you compare the relative moral depravity of stealing a box of cigarillos and repeatedly shooting an unarmed person in a densely populated city street.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Can you please bring up the post where I say Brown was "asking for it" because he was black?

I didn't say you did. But the facts are Wilson got fired, in fact his whole department got fired because of poor policing. He was a member of a police culture that was involved in racial tensions, so much so that all involved in that culture were fired. If you don't think that culture influenced his thinking then you are being naive.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Here in Britain it's being reported as an open and shut case so what's all the fuss about?
Basically we hear that Officer Wilson asked Brown and his friend to stop walking in the middle of the road but they ignored him.
Wilson stopped his car and began to get out, at which Brown smashed the car door on him and dived on top of him trying to get his gun.
He failed and backed off; the officer got out and Brown lunged at him again, so he had to fire in self defence.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Pretty much so. Just like many of you are going to continue with your presumed conclusions that Michael Brown was asking for it by virtue of his being black.

No one thinks Brown was asking for it because he was black. What people are doing is assuming the officers story is true.

That story is that Brown was charging the officer even when his gun was drawn at him. Brown was hedging that the officer would not fire.

Now let's assume for a second that the officer's story is true.

A. We already have a guy (Brown) that already attempted to grab the officers gun.
B. The officer knew he was no physical match for Brown not to mention he had two (Dorian) people to combat if he had to use physical means.
C. With Brown charging the officer, the officer had no time to use any other means ( or less -lethal) to subdue Brown.

So if the officers story is true, he was justified in shooting Brown (under those circumstances). The only issue here is to assume the officer's story or Brown's criminal friend's story.

In lieu of any conclusive facts, most rational people will assume a decorated police officers story then a criminal's story.

What aspect of this is so difficult for you to understand?

 

[oldbadger]

.................. I'm assuming body armor and assault rifle is all I'd need until I get a learner's permit to take off in an armored tank.

.......... God save America....... ?

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

I'm not seeing anybody saying that out loud, but there is a definite double standard among Wilson's defenders. Pejoratives for Brown (thug, POS, criminal, etc) pour out of them like candy from a busted pinata, but if anyone suggests Wilson might have behaved badly, suddenly we "don't have enough information" to figure out whether or not he's a thug or a POS. It's absurd, to be honest. Especially when you compare the relative moral depravity of stealing a box of cigarillos and repeatedly shooting an unarmed person in a densely populated city street.

And he is all those things! That's point your missing. Yes it's possible the officer was in the wrong. But the fact that Brown was a (thug, POS, criminal, etc) is why until we know conclusive facts, we are assuming the officer is telling the truth... Get it?

 

[Revoltingest]

.......... God save America....... ?

Note possible.
There are 3 major camps:
1) It's possible that Brown attacked Wilson, therefore he acted properly in self defense.
2) It's possible that Wilson is a racist, therefore Brown is innocent.
3) Wait for the dust to settle, & rationally evaluate the evidence.
Camp 3 doesn't get much media play.

 

[Alceste]

No one thinks Brown was asking for it because he was black. What people are doing is assuming the officers story is true.

That story is that Brown was charging the officer even when his gun was drawn at him. Brown was hedging that the officer would not fire.

Now let's assume for a second that the officer's story is true.

A. We already have a guy (Brown) that already attempted to grab the officers gun.
B. The officer knew he was no physical match for Brown not to mention he had two (Dorian) people to combat if he had to use physical means.
C. With Brown charging the officer, the officer had no time to use any other means ( or less -lethal) to subdue Brown.

So if the officers story is true, he was justified in shooting Brown (under those circumstances). The only issue here is to assume the officer's story or Brown's criminal friend's story.

In lieu of any conclusive facts, most rational people will assume a decorated police officers story then a criminal's story.

What aspect of this is so difficult for you to understand?

Actually, the story about "charging" was entirely fabricated by the media, based on a video where a witness was overheard saying Brown "came toward" Wilson after initially trying to run. Wilson hasn't yet explained for himself why he shot Brown.

It would be great if the folks who are demanding that we all wait for "the facts" before "rushing to judgment" actually tried to keep track of the facts that are already available.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Note possible.
There are 3 major camps:
1) It's possible that Brown attacked Wilson, therefore he acted properly in self defense.
2) It's possible that Wilson is a racist, therefore Brown is innocent.
3) Wait for the dust to settle, & rationally evaluate the evidence.
Camp 3 doesn't get much media play.

Just curious, if you are a racist does that mean you can't defend yourself from bodily harm? Playing devil's advocate, Wilson was racist, if the same events unfolded, would he still be justified?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just curious, if you are a racist does that mean you can't defend yourself from bodily harm? Playing devil's advocate, Wilson was racist, if the same events unfolded, would he still be justified?

I'm in camp #3.
I don't know sh**.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Actually, the story about "charging" was entirely fabricated by the media, based on a video where a witness was overheard saying Brown "came toward" Wilson after initially trying to run. Wilson hasn't yet explained for himself why he shot Brown.

It would be great if the folks who are demanding that we all wait for "the facts" before "rushing to judgment" actually tried to keep track of the facts that are already available.

Let's not make a play on words, the point of the officers story was that he was defending himself. We can roll words but you do understand the premise that Brown was coming/ lunging/ charging moving towards Wilson.

 

[Alceste]

And he is all those things! That's point your missing. Yes it's possible the officer was in the wrong. But the fact that Brown was a (thug, POS, criminal, etc) is why until we know conclusive facts, we are assuming the officer is telling the truth... Get it?

I would argue a divorced 28 year old officer who has already been fired from his job for fomenting racial tension and who gunned down an unarmed civilian in a densely populated city street is most likely AT LEAST as much a thug and a POS as Darren Brown was. And in my personal opinion, more so, because killing a human being is a more serious moral offense from my perspective than shoplifting.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Another open and shut case was reported here in Britain some time ago when Neighbourhood Watchman George Zimmerman was jumped on by a black prowler and was forced to shoot him in self defence, yet it kicked up as much fuss as the Wilson-Brown case.
Surely the truths below still hold true today, or has America gone soft or what?-

"The right of self defense is the first law of nature"- St. George Tucker (1752-1827) American judge and militiaman

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."- (President John Adams 1735-1826)

 

[Alceste]

Let's not make a play on words, the point of the officers story was that he was defending himself. We can roll words but you do understand the premise that Brown was coming/ lunging/ charging moving towards Wilson.

No, it isn't. The officer has not told us his side of the story. He's gone into hiding, and he's not saying a thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another open and shut case was reported here in Britain some time ago when Neighbourhood Watchman George Zimmerman was jumped on by a black prowler and was forced to shoot him in self defence.

In Martin's defense, he wasn't a "prowler". It appears he was lawfully
minding his own business before he attacked Zimmerman.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Let's not make a play on words, the point of the officers story was that he was defending himself. We can roll words but you do understand the premise that Brown was coming/ lunging/ charging moving towards Wilson.

We have no real incident report. There is none.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

I would argue a divorced 28 year old officer who has already been fired from his job for fomenting racial tension and who gunned down an unarmed civilian in a densely populated city street is most likely AT LEAST as much a thug and a POS as Darren Brown was. And in my personal opinion, more so, because killing a human being is a more serious moral offense from my perspective than shoplifting.

LOL! Being divorced is a character assessment? I am frubaling you for that LOL. Now, I know you the difference between shoplifting ......and assault and robbery? What's this look like.... ?

Wait a sec!!! Maybe your right, he is trying to shoplift the store clerk!

 

[Alceste]

LOL! Being divorced is a character assessment? I am frubaling you for that LOL. Now, I know you the difference between shoplifting ......and assault and robbery? What's this look like.... ?

Wait a sec!!! Maybe your right, he is trying to shoplift the store clerk!

Well he certainly isn't gunning down an unarmed person in a densely populated city street.

I concede that Brown behaved badly. Wilson behaved worse.

And yes, being divorced at 28 says something about your judgment, mental and emotional stability, like it or not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Facts:
Brown is black.
Killing is wrong.
Wilson is white & divorced.
Wilson was on a force disbanded, but has a clean record at his latest gig.
Shoplifting isn't so bad (unless you own a store).
It's possible Wilson once had a neckbeard.

Hey, I'm convinced....Wilson is guilty!

 

[Alceste]

We have no real incident report. There is none.

Isn't it funny how people who have never actually looked directly at the credible details that are available, accuse those who have done so of being stirred up by the media, insist on waiting until "the facts" come out (except the "fact" that the victim was a "thug", we're supposed to take that as a given)... isn't it funny how often they repeat fictions that are entirely fabricated in the media as gospel truth? Like how "coming towards" means "charging"? And the dubious "broken eye socket" story from "a source"?