Mike Brown shooting/Ferguson, MO

i'm confused guys, are you saying because he robbed a store for $50 dollars of cigars he had it coming to him because he wasn't an innocent angel? he needed to be put down? that he deserved it? that it was some karmic reaction because he committed a crime earlier and was killed by a guy who had no idea of that crime? what is the point of even bringing up the fact that "he was no innocent" "well he robbed this grocery store." so that means he has no rights, he doesn't get a trial? he did something bad so it was cool to kill him because he wasn't feeding the poor?

that's cool. i mean, that poor dog bit a huma....wait. we're talking about a human being here. right. so none of that shit fucking matters.

jesus f. christ, if this was a white dude that got shot, that police chief would be stepping down, the police officer would already be in court on his way to jail, and the city/police would be facing a billion dollar lawsuit.

 

wasn't the cop outside the car when the shooting happened? i don't care if he's black, but i do care if he's 300 lbs and has fists.

i read that a big dude got in an altercation with a cop and made a charge at him. i don't think the color of his skin matters there, or what happened before the whole event... what matters to me is brown allegedly put the cop in a position to take action.

man that is double or triple a better investment, because i really don't like seeing those especially powerful weapons out there without the training necessary to use them. i already don't like what i've seen of most cops at shooting ranges or read of their testing requirements (hint... that badge doesn't mean they can shoot), so putting an m4 in un-trained hands is kinda like putting a 16 year old new driver in a hot rod in my eyes.

 

for the purposes of internet conjecture, yes "unarmed" means "incapable of posing a threat to someone who is, in fact, armed". if it makes you feel better, how about "non-threatening"?

i hate how language is clouding this issue. cop shoots anyone with no gun, knife, bomb, etc. visible on their person 6 times, it's fucked up.

it's not about guilt or innocence, it's about recognizing that the use of force (six fucking shots? six?) is inappropriate. a jury determines guilt or innocence, a judge determines if it's enough for the kid to die. dirty harry over here has watched too many movies and couldn't control himself in the situation.

 

i am not defending the shooting and the lack of powder burns or stippling suggests they weren't next to each other. however look up the tueller drill. twenty feet seems like a pretty wide distance, but an attacker can close that distance before a person can react to shoot.

 

also, enough talk about the autopsy.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missou ... ?hpt=hp_t1

yeah, so much for that charging non-sense.

question for people so vehemently arguing with me "why am i trying to talk myself into the idea that michael brown did something wrong here? why is it important to me?" think about that to yourself, quietly, for a very, very long time.

oh yeah, they totally teach the tueller drill to black kids without knives in fucking ferguson, missouri. i took it my senior year in chicago as an elective ap course. they showed us how to do it without a knife and our hands up.

 

a big dude could still close that 20-some foot gap before you know it, and if that's what happened i doubt he was going to shake the cops hand. had brown not (allegedly) turned back around and charged the cop, i'd totally agree with you.

the actual number of shots is irrelevant in this case it's not like he was down right away and the cop just kept firing for good measure- it was the last shot that brought him down.

okay... if brown was innocent and shot while surrendering, lets hope the jury finds the officer guilty as fuck.

 

let's go back to this.

guys, if michael brown did anything to get himself shot, don't you think the first fucking thing the police would have done is released that car footage and said "the officer reacted because michael brown was doing x?" if he was doing anything besides raising his hands up above his head 20 feet from the car, that video would have been out before his father could have made a sign.

fox news would have been all like "michael brown enacted tueller drill as police offer had to make a quick call to save his own life." holy fucking shit, i can't stop laughing at the idea of a 18 year old unarmed black kid who knew anything about the tueller drill.

all of this is beside the point. here we go again, dog shit distractions. this wouldn't be a discussion if it was a white guy.

 

there is no car footage, because the car didn't have a camera. there's an issue right there.

the point of the tueller thing being brought up is to demonstrate that people can cover 20-30 feet very quickly and overcome an armed person, not like it was some special tactic brown would've known or not. it means brown still could have been a threat if he was making a move, even if he wasn't right next to the cop. it hinges on whether or not brown was surrendering or charging, and we don't have a conclusive answer.

this is important... i wish the autopsy was more conclusive.

 

the tueller thing is utter horseshit.

now, anyone within 20 feet of a cop is in danger of getting shot because they are a goddamned superhero and can easily disarm a trained police officer and then wreak havoc? bullshit. he could close the distance before the officer could fire? bullshit and/or so fucking what. i "charge" a cop and he is now authorized to shoot me six fucking times? bullshit.

force was not justified. unarmed kid presented no credible threat. end of fucking story.

sometimes you take an punch or three to avoid shooting someone to death. it's not the end of the world for a police officer to get physically assaulted, take it, and arrest the suspect later based on video/eyewitness evidence. it is indeed the end of the world to shoot a person six times for no discernible reason. think about the magnitude of this mistake, as opposed to "meh, a teenager took a swing at me today".

to wit: just because you have a gun and can shoot someone does not mean you should, regardless of what they might actually be doing.

to the person who suggests: "what if he grabs the officer's gun?" the gun should not have been out of the fucking holster or in play in this situation and in a struggle, it's a lot easier for the officer to keep the gun in the holster, secure than it is for someone to attack him, get the gun out, chamber a round, click the safety off, aim and fire (all while the officer is presumably trying to remove the gun from said person's control".

 

has it been confirmed that it's actually brown in the surveillance video? everything i've seen still says "allegedly".

only reason i think it could be relevant is from brown's perspective (since we know it wasn't part of the officer's perspective). if he did just rob a store, i could totally understand that making him more sketched out and aggressive toward an approaching officer (even more than the type of person who robs a store would already be). so i could see that making him confrontational, even if he never actually charged, putting the officer on high alert regarding his own safety.

but to jump from that to weapon drawn and fired multiple times, without calling back up or using pepper spray, stretches (breaks?) any argument for a reasonable, justified response. i feel like the above (robbed a store, was confrontational, even charging) is about the most 'benefit of the doubt' you could give the officer, and he still acted like a neighborhood watch volunteer who watched taxi driver too many times.

and yeah, cameras on cars and vests, versus army gear and sniper rifles. if it's even a debate among departments which is the better approach in protecting the community, things are worse than they look.

 

which people? white people who this is less likely for this to happen to or everyone else? sometimes would be a blessing. and dickheads give you a parking ticket you're a minute late this is something else.

no. it. is. not. once again, let's say he reached for the gun, didn't get it and ran. pretty sure that still doesn't 6 shots (that hit, probably more fired) one of those to the head.

why is it so damn important that he did something wrong? it still doesn't justify it. also, look at pictures of darren wilson, not a small dude either. the scared of the big black dude thing doesn't fucking stick.

the problem is this shit happens (and has happened) to minorities where they didn't rob stores, they didn't reach for guns, they didn't (hypothetically) charge any police officers. they just got fucked up, injured to death or kill straight out just because. that my dear friends, is the problem here.

and to flow with superfantastics post. no, there hasn't been any 100% confirmation it is him in the video. 1) all black people look the same, so of course its it. 2) darren wilson had no idea of the robbery or any potential connection michael brown could have had to it. so it is completely unrelated in this shooting.

 

seeing as how the tueller drill is training for the guy with the gun, i'm guessing you're going for reductio ad absurdum.

so the story is that the cop shot a stationary, surrendering person six times and didn't even come close to center mass. he must be a pretty lousy shot.

my assessment of this story is that two aggressive, violent dickheads ran into each other and did aggressive violent dickhead things until one shot the other one.

 

so, the story is that having run away, he turns around and charges back at an armed officer because....reasons?

 

that's a flawed assessment. as there is no confirmed (see: confirmed) evidence michael brown was aggressive.

going to post this here because it needs to be seen. https://twitter.com/hashtag/iftheygunnedmedown?src=hash

 

i'm asking in all sincerity. what part do you believe i said is racist? that fact i think it's fucked up a community has little to zero representation within its own local police force or that the assumption that joining the police force is often frowned upon by one's peers in many minority communities? or is it the fact i think it's asinine to expect anything but hostility between police and a community when the only time they interact is after something bad occurred?

nowhere did i say i thought the autopsy showed he was charging the car. what it does show is he was not shot in the back as many media reports speculated. i based my conclusion on my experience and knowledge of firearms and the limited verifiable evidence available to the public at this time. sure it's possible he was shot in the arm and looked down for the fatal shot to hit him in the head, but i maintain it's rather hard to hit the front side of his arm if his hand are in the air. additionally, muzzle climb from a high rate of fire would cause subsequent rounds to hit higher than lower.

hell, here's another theory: the officer shot three rounds hitting him in the arm and shoulder...he started to raise his hands, but couldn't due to the shoulder wound and began to lower them as well as look down at his wounds when the officer reestablished aim and this time fired the fatal shot to the head.

can you verify the cop's car was locked with the window rolled up and brown was zero threat to him?

we're on the same page more than you think. i'll say it again, i don't believe there was a reason to shoot, but that officer stopped and interacted with brown for a reason. i agree more than likely his reasons were racially motivated, but i also don't believe the officer happened decide 'fuck it, i'm gonna shoot me a black kid for shits and giggles today'. something escalated very quickly between the two and now we have a young kid dead and a town burning itself to the ground in spite of itself.

personally, i rarely if ever believe one side is 100% innocent. i think all sides need to look themselves in the mirror and realize they aren't acting in a manner that is for the betterment of all.

 

if you reduced this thread and the news reports to confirmed evidence, this thing would only be one page.

 

so anyways, since we are all grasping at straws, how long does this take to go to trial? how bad are the riots going to be when he is acquitted?

 

right, which is why i said "if he was making a move" and not "just standing there." that's a very big, very important "if."

what prompted the cop's gun going off in the car in the first place? if brown already went for the gun once, i'm guessing the cop thought that would be his goal again and wasn't willing to risk getting knocked out and losing all control of his weapon.

 

that is the point i was trying to make bringing up the tueller drill. this is the reason you see cops unholster before closing that distance if they think the situation to use deadly force is remotely possible.