forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"And I'm sorry, but the "history of white cops killing black men" is bullshit.  So we hold a cop who appears to be under 30 responsible for a bunch of things that happened before he was born?  At some point people need to quit using the past as a crutch for everything bad that has happened to them.  How many white cops have been killed by black men?  I guess racial profiling is a one way street."

This almost reads like Edward Norton's Rodney King speech from American History X.
 

Doesn't make it any less true.    

BTW, you didn't answer my question.  Does Michael Brown get a pass on attacking the officer because the officer may have been rude?

No. If he assaulted the officer and tried to take his gun, then it puts the entire episode into a different realm. But there are still too many questions I need to know the answers to before I render an opinion as to whom was the primary aggressor.
 

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Most news agencies would love nothing better than to run a racist angled story about a 95% white police department in Ferguson."

Really? Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you have the experience to know what most news agencies want to do. I can drive a car, but that doesn't make me an auto mechanic.
But there is something troubling about a police department that is 95 percent white in community that's 67 percent black. I've read Ferguson's demographics have changed radically over the past 20 or so years, so I understand there's a bit of a curve, but to only have five black officers out of 55? I'm surprised something like this hasn't happened sooner.
 

Much like a Boston native intelligently speaking on the demographics of a city thousands of miles away, the internet entitles me. Case in point? I'm clearly not an auto mechanic, but thanks to that same internet, I will be replacing both rear brake rotors and pads tonight in my garage. Weeks ago with the help of that same internet, I replaced the rear passenger window motor and regulator. The internet is awesome for giving people information. Like you, I'm just reading.

I also know that your primary argument about what you believe took place was largely distributed by his co-felon and some girl. Both of which stated without a shadow of a doubt that Michael was shot in the back, his body jerked. He turned and put his hands up, and surrendered, and was mowed down. I watched both of these people on CNN footage. This was not a biased media throwing me a curve. 

If that happened, it's deplorable, but considering he was NEVER shot in the back, I am not ready to decide that the rest of the story was completely true. 

To prove my point about the media loving to put racism stories out there, forgive me if I point you to the 4 million of them that are out there right now. This would not have been much different had they just went to the news. Of course they were minutes from being recognized and apprehended for a felony, so there really wasn't time for that.

Edit: Donald Sterling just had his world implode as a result of a far less public racial rant that was blown up by the media. 

Last edited by alz (8/19/2014 11:47 am)

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

So an arch-conservative website part-owned by notorious whack job and fiction-spewer Glenn Beck is reporting that the P-D is reporting cops relying on anonymity are claiming there are a dozen similarly-unnamed witnesses backing up their colleague? Seems like valuable information from a reliable source.

Why are you so dead set that brown was innocent and police officer was wrong on every account?
 

I'm not, AP. I don't think I've written that Brown is innocent, or the officer is guilty of anything. What I do think is the situation could have been handled better initially by the officer.
 

 

Without going back and attempting to put together some sort of accussing post, it seems that ur comments have been more geared towards browns innocents then his guilt.  The sidewalk comment that seems to be driving your theory can never be proven.  Johnson is a proven liar and brown is dead.  Nobody else was likely close enough to hear.  Those are the facts.  Like fors pointed out, and i agree, being a bully doesnt justify an assault on a officer.  Imo, as i just posted, it is unlikely that the officer made those comments and that was the whole conversation.  Now we are debating who said what first.  Thats playground shit. 

One thing im sure u understand is that some people dont respond to polite talk.  Im not talking black and white.  Im talk white to white.  I assume it is the same with other races.  Asking someone to please move out of traffic and use the sidewalk doesnt get much response when speaking with certain type people.  That doesnt mean i agree the conversation should start with a comment such as "use the fucking sidewalk" or whatever.  I can certainly see how the conversation end up there.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

So an arch-conservative website part-owned by notorious whack job and fiction-spewer Glenn Beck is reporting that the P-D is reporting cops relying on anonymity are claiming there are a dozen similarly-unnamed witnesses backing up their colleague? Seems like valuable information from a reliable source.

Why are you so dead set that brown was innocent and police officer was wrong on every account?
 

I'm not, AP. I don't think I've written that Brown is innocent, or the officer is guilty of anything. What I do think is the situation could have been handled better initially by the officer.
 

Got it. You haven't concluded the officer is guilty, you're just assuming he acted like an asshole at the beginning of the contact based on the word of Brown's robbery accomplice.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Why are you so dead set that brown was innocent and police officer was wrong on every account?
 

I'm not, AP. I don't think I've written that Brown is innocent, or the officer is guilty of anything. What I do think is the situation could have been handled better initially by the officer.
 

Got it. You haven't concluded the officer is guilty, you're just assuming he acted like an asshole at the beginning of the contact based on the word of Brown's robbery accomplice.

And the fact there's a dead 18-year-old. 
 

"Ever watch for the love of the game"

Once. I hated it. It's a chick flick disguised as a baseball movie.


 "Just because a guy is not a convicted felon doesnt mean he has not done bad shit and got away with it."

Well, this is the "When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife?" question. The facts are, according to everything I've read, he did not have a criminal record.


"Did the officer have that time?  Does it even matter?  If he would have had a criminal history a mile long then the officer would have been profiling."

But don't we rely on an officer's training and experience to assess a situation and take the appropriate actions? Again, the officer didn't know Brown and Johnson had just been involved in a robbery, a felony, an assault ... however it's been termed. They stole a handful of cigars from a convenience store. Illegal? Yes. Are they the second coming of John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson?
The officer sees two young men walking in the middle of the street, maybe blocking traffic. Does the situation call for a confrontation that eventually ends up with one of them being shot six times and killed? Probably not.
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (8/19/2014 12:18 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Without going back and attempting to put together some sort of accussing post, it seems that ur comments have been more geared towards browns innocents then his guilt"

And the three other people who have posted on the subject almost immediately and reflexively jumped to the defense of the officer. 
Let me turn it around and ask you this: Is there a situation where a member of law enforcement shooting someone would not be justified? Are we always obliged to do what the police tell us?

There are cops in jail for unjustified shooting in which the system did its job.  This is america.  Trust the system.  It isnt perfect but it is better then what is happening in ferguson. 

Obligated?  No i guess not but those officer who step out of line should be handled in court and by filing complaints.  Not by assaulting them.  I know your opinion is likely that the thin blue line will take care of the police.  However there are plenty of cops who have lost in civil court for there fuck ups.   Cops fuck up....it is part of being human.  If your doing something illegal, even if it is just walking down the middle of the rd, you should do as told.  Also the cops are granted alot of leway for being human.  Leway by the courts, not the public.  You cant expect them to always be right.  The term willful and wanton is the term fors would throw out.  Meaning as long as the officer believed to be acting reasonable at the time and not grossly careless or negligent, reckless, malicious he will likely be found innocent regardless of the end result.  As fors stated a cop being a bully wont make the shooting unjustified.  If that is even true. 

I feel horrible for wilson.  He was likely trying to do his job.  Has a wife and family..  i assume.  Now all this.  He wont be able to live a normal life ever.  Probably wont be able to be a cop either.  If he killed brown in coldblood i hope he pays.  I promise i do.  That is only right.  However if he was just trying to complete his shift and got caught in this shit storm i think he deserves better then this.  I think he deserves better to be treated as tho he did something wrong when the water are so murky.  It doesnt matter if brown was 18.  18 year olds kill people.  What matters is the facts u covered through the investigation.

Im not mad at ur opinion.  Everyone has one.  I certainly do.  My opinions on the subject is that there is more to the story then first report.  We are finding that out now.  The knee jerk reaction was to thow the officer under the bus.  It was done by state rep, governer and the brass in law enforcement.  I bdlieve that knee jerk reaction was wrong.  The rioting is way out of line.  The excuses only feed the fire.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Ever watch for the love of the game"

Once. I hated it. It's a chick flick disguised as a baseball movie.


 "Just because a guy is not a convicted felon doesnt mean he has not done bad shit and got away with it."

Well, this is the "When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife?" question. The facts are, according to everything I've read, he did not have a criminal record.


"Did the officer have that time?  Does it even matter?  If he would have had a criminal history a mile long then the officer would have been profiling."

But don't we rely on an officer's training and experience to assess a situation and take the appropriate actions? Again, the officer didn't know Brown and Johnson had just been involved in a robbery, a felony, an assault ... however it's been termed. They stole a handful of cigars from a convenience store. Illegal? Yes. Are they the second coming of John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson?
The officer sees two young men walking in the middle of the street, maybe blocking traffic. Does the situation call for a confrontation that eventually ends up with one of them being shot six times and killed? Probably not.
 

 

I can see that with for the love of the game..lol


His criminal record does NOT matter.  Only in the court of public opinion.  The only thing that matters is wilson and brown actions and reaction during the 5 minutes or whatever this took place.  The fact that wilson didnt know he robbed a gas station means that it cant weigh into his use of force but it doesnt mean his use of force was unjustified.  If brown would have been 40 and on parol for murder, that still wouldnt have mattered had the officer not known it.  And if the officer had known it that doesnt give him the right to gun him down.  Your argueing about what the public thinks.  Not about what happend on the street.  Officers are not train to know people criminal history.  To obtain the criminal history would have taken longer then this whole thing took to play out, more then likely.  Takes me 5 to 10 minutes to get it and take a look through it. 

The cri inal history arguement is a smoke screen on both side of this arguement.  It simply didnt matter.

I believe this is a very good link about the autopsy. There's no "story" here, just the interview transcript. It's not in it's final form and may be updated, but it at least is from the mouth of the medical examiner. 

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/08/19/inside-private-autopsy-michael-brown

What I took from this.
-Michael Browns gunshot wounds conclusively were from a distance greater than 1 foot. Without the clothing it isn't possible to go further out from there. 
-This concludes he was not shot from the car. That round fired didn't hit him. 
-Nothing concretely suggests his hands were raised above his head, but nothing that rules it out either. The wounds could have happened with his arms at his side.
-Nothing concretely suggested aggressive standing from Michael, but again, nothing ruled it out. The head shot (fatal shot) could have been from charging, or a bowed head during a surrender.
-There's no official toxicology report yet, which could provide answers to the sobriety of Michael Brown, one way or another. There are rumors of marijuana and the examiner says that the levels could be important to determining the affects on Brown's mind during the altercation, but nothing more.
-The shot from the top of the head was fatal, and instantly crippling. He fell uncontrolled from that wound, immediately. 
 
What this leaves me to believe are valid possibilities. There are two stories which begin from Michael leaving the police car altercation. He's either hit or not hit in a non-fatal manner (one of the arm wounds), he turns back towards the car, and he either puts his hands up, bows his head to surrender, or he takes off back to the cop charging with his head down. He is then shot multiple times, and killed.

That's really "what I know" at this point.

AP I read that as well. For the validity of it. I believe it to be the cops assessment of what happened. I don't think this person was actually present at the shooting though, and it's a friend of the officer.

It's as valid as the guy saying he surrendered for whether I can take it as fact, but it does make the officers actions seem less like a racist radical and more like .... well a cop.

I'm not going to try to respond to every post, I'll just try to summarize.

Artie, it seems to me you're holding a pretty big double standard.  In your mind, the cop must have acted like an asshole in initiating the contact, because ultimately Brown ended up dead, but you seem willing to overlook that Brown committed a robbery only minutes prior to the encounter.  Brown was more than willing to be aggressive toward the store clerk, but it's inconceivable that he would have acted that way to the cop.  Somehow Wilson's subsequent conduct proves his earlier conduct, but Brown's earlier conduct doesn't support his subsequent behavior.  Not sure I get that.

Regarding Brown's criminal background, whether he's a convicted felon or not, we know he committed a felony prior to this incident because the robbery is caught on tape, and the family attorney has acknowledged it was Brown.  So he is a felon.  As to whether he has a record, what we know is that he doesn't have a record as an adult.  Juvenile records are sealed.  Brown was 18.  He had been an adult for less than a year prior to his death.  We will never know whether he had a juvenile record, other than knowing that nothing he may have done was serious enough to get him charged as an adult.

Regarding the training and experience issue, the officer's primary responsibility everytime he puts on his uniform is to go home to his family at the end of his shift.  The force continuum looks nice on a piece of paper, but not every circumstance allows or even an officer to take non-lethal steps before resorting to lethal force.  I assume you read my earlier post about the guy who tried to take my gun.  I can assure you that if he had turned and ran back toward me, he wouldn't have had a second chance to grab it.  I'd have dropped him and wouldn't have given it a second thought.  Cops aren't super-human, there are plenty of people out there who are bigger or better trained to inflict damage.  You use the least amount of force necessary, and my guess is if you ask Wilson he'd tell you that's what he did.  It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but it isn't your life at risk.  There's an old saying, "better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6."  

Going back to the beginning of the stop, go back and listen to Johnson's version of events.  According to Johnson, the officer pulled up, told them to "get the fuck out of the street" or "get on the fucking sidewalk" (whatever it was) and then drove off.  Then he supposedly returned and confronted them (this is when Wilson supposedly grabbed Brown by the neck while sitting in the police car).  Does any of that really make sense?  We're supposed to believe that the officer drove up, played tough guy, drove off and then returned seconds later to escalate the situation?  Serious question, does that sound remotely logical?

Let me offer another scenario.  Admittedly, it has no basis in fact except it's based on 7 years of actually having done the job in a city with a demographic comparable to Ferguson's.  Officer drives up to two black youths walking in the middle of the street and tells them to get on the sidewalk.  Maybe he says something like "guys, do me a favor and get on the sidewalk.  Maybe he he says "get out of the middle of the street."  He probably doesn't cuss because this incident is so insignificant he quickly drives off to continue about his business.  However, before he can drive off, one of the two youths responds with some sort of comment.  Maybe profane, maybe not, but likely disrespectful otherwise the officer drives on.

If the officer was inclined to harass or bully these two harmless youths, why would he have driven off after his first contact?  What brought him back?  Could it have been Brown or Johnson who uttered the first inappropriate comment?

One last thing--in assessing Wilson's credibility, do we give any credit to the fact that he admitted being unaware of the robbery?  Seems to me that if he was trying to cover his tracks, one of the simplest things to do would have been to claim to have been aware of the robbery.  In fact, if the cops were trying to cover for Wilson, wouldn't someone have pulled him aside and told him to say that he knew about the robbery?

If wilson came back because he knew about the robbery as his "friend" reported there would be a record of that.  If that turns out to be his side of the story it would be easy to prove or disprove.  Who knows if that account is true tho.