Mike Brown shooting/Ferguson, MO

here's the thing, though: say that is him. the punishment for robbery is not execution in the middle of the street by a police officer. even if true, it's irrelevant.

 

honest question. has the reported fight between the officer and brown confirmed or denied? i know there are conflicting witness statements.

 

totally agree. it certainly seems like there's all kinds of bad in the shooting - most definitely if it went down like the the witness (dorian johnson) described. but it's possible that this happened:

- two men that fit the description of brown and johnson steal from the convenience store.
- 911 call placed from convenience store indicating a theft. the caller indicates the type of theft that is classified as strong arm robbery.
- police respond, including officer wilson.
- officer wilson sees brown and johnson walking together in the street and rides up to question them since they fit the description.
- brown refuses to comply with wilson's request as question begins.

i don't know what happened after that. stealing a box of cigars, or refusing to answer questions certainly shouldn't result in getting shot and killed. and, even if brown did something while being questioned that legitimately made wilson feel he was about to be harmed, where he was justified to pull his weapon, it sounds like it still went too far after that. i mean, if brown really had been subdued, was on his knees and said "don't shoot" and then wilson continued firing? now that is some bullshit for sure.

to gamecocks' question: the only account i've seen of what went down is from johnson, allegedly the other suspect in the robbery. (which, if true, why haven't the police arrested johnson?)

 

my understanding is that the police account and johnson account are still in disagreement there: the cops says brown instigated the fight, johnson says the opposite. the other witnesses merely witnesses a struggle, the officer pursuing brown, and then the shooting, without any statements about what caused the struggle.

 

i'm not a lawyer but wouldn't you build a case, collect evidence to back that case, privately? they don't have to share publicly and shouldn't until this goes to trial. i assume there will be some sort of trial where the officers have to prove they were acting within the law and if not face charges.

also not a cop/lawyer but if the threat of violence or actual violence were used in a robbery wouldn't that step it up from shoplifting? clearly a box of cigars is not worth fighting over but i would assume they would hit with the highest possible crime and plea down to get a guilty verdict. i would guess, based on my limited experience with the law that is a standard thing.

 

according to news feeds, our debonair friends of the westboro baptist church are heading to ferguson.

maybe they'll get killed. let's all have a prayer that they do.

 

i'd love to see a little god hates fags thrown into this. if there's any more violent rioting, you can bet your ass that some of those westborough baptist church people are going to eat it.

 

regardless of which side of the issue you're on, why did they have to burn down the quiktrip? the nearest qt to me is about 25 miles away on my way to atlanta. do you know how much i'd love to have a qt in my city? maybe if i petition quiktrip they'll rebuild in my city instead of ferguson. the rioters didn't appreciate it.

add me in with the people who hope the wbc morons get their asses beaten though.

 

so here are the pictures of the strong armed robbery suspect while the incident is occurring and then there are the photos of the body laying on the ground and then a circled picture of the hat (i think it looks like it's the same person). i'm sorry, i don't give a shit if he had a gun/weapon or not - if i'm a store clerk/owner, this would scare the shit out of me. i don't give a shit if it was "petty theft" - fuck people who feel like it's ok to steal and take shit that's not yours.

my 2 cents on this is that there was an "incident" that happened and the community/family have a family member who was shot and killed by a police officer and they're outraged and angry about it and before they get all the facts, an uprising occurs. we don't know what the fuck happened upon the confrontation by the police. from bits and pieces, it sounds like they were confronted by the police because brown fit the description of the suspect - what happened after that, we don't know the police officer's side yet. we do have another person's account who was allegedly also involved in the incident at the store so if he was also involved, of course he's going to lie. and just like with trayvon martin, people got angry before anything was able to be investigated/relayed/discussed with the family and the community and by then, it was tried in the media in the most over the top way possible.

that being said, i'm not saying there aren't crooked/dirty cops who do things illegal and fucked up. but i also know that i don't spend my full time job dealing with some of the fucked up shit that is going on these days, nor do i want to. people want to vilify the police but here in our city alone (with a population around 800k), there have been two police officers shot and killed in the line of duty in the past 6 months by thugs trying to get away with committing crimes so i can't imagine the fear they work with and the fucked up things that happen on a regular basis that we have no idea about.

but just like with anything that can get the media involved where they can get people up in arms before all the facts have been shared, then that's going to happen and i blame them most for this stuff going on in missouri. my apologies for rambling about this but it pisses me off to no end that there's this immediate speculation and anger about something that none of us have all the facts on, yet like fuel to the fire, the media just keeps it going and people are going to get worked up and angry. a vicious ugly cycle that's tiresome.

 

i generally default to a respect/appreciate mentality when it comes to my opinion on law enforcement. i struggle to think of a job that has a worse 'risk : thanklessness' ratio. that said, it seems like this officer was one of the bad ones. what slightly baffles me is why the department has to act so stupid as well. atrocious as they are, these things happen. that means there are examples to follow, and ones to not, in terms of how to handle the backlash. demonstrations are a common result and they unfortunately can lead to riots. is there a single example where demonstrations were met with army gear and that made things better? where that somehow appeased the demonstrators, who were demonstrating against excess police force and brutality, to the point they chilled out and went home and waited for all the facts to come in? i understand reasons to not name the officer (though i personally think they still should), but at least issue a statement saying he's been suspended without pay (even if he hasn't), or "he appeared to act with too much force", or something that could release even some of the pressure cooker that is understandably building and ready to explode. seems like that would give the appearance of a department who understands their community's rage, and has some interest in serving them. at least more than sniper rifles.

 

only facts that matter (and were true from the beginning) in regards to a 17 year old getting shot is that he didn't have a gun or knife, and was shot to death. those haven't changed and aren't going to change. everything else is circumstantial bullshit.

 

my first thought upon seeing the footage was, "that guy is fucking huge." my next thought was about deebo from friday.

would anyone feel conflicted if the cops fired tear gas and rubber bullets at the westboro asshats?

 

no, the fact is, we don't know if he tried to steal the officer's gun. carrying a weapon or not, if you try to steal a law enforcement officer's firearm, there is going to be a potentially dire outcome. and if there was an incident in the car where the gun went off, it could very well be for that very reason. so instead of simply stating that we have a 17 year old getting shot who didn't have a knife or gun, we also don't yet know if he tried to overtake a police officer and take his gun because we don't yet have all the facts. period. hence the point in my post - why can't we wait until all the facts have been revealed before everyone gets worked up and assume they know everything like it's gospel because of how it's being revealed in the media?

 

has anyone came across anything saying the cop called for back up? (i assume not, since they don't seem to be releasing any info).

let's assume he did reach for the cop's gun, before it was un-holstered. in the interest of self-preservation, wouldn't your instinct (let alone police protocol) be to step on the gas to get away? maybe even...call for back up? we all want all the facts, but it feels like a pretty big stretch to come up with a reasonable scenario (even one in which the kid was the aggressor) where an unarmed person is justifiably shot multiple times.

and who's holding back facts? what's the one side of the story we haven't heard yet? as long as the department issues nothing and keeps their sniper rifles focused, i think it's a completely understandable conclusion to think they don't want to release info because their primary interest is protecting their own, at all costs, instead of the community.

 

media aside, if that was the case, it would/should have been mentioned during one of the unedited live streaming press conferences. it would have probably been the first thing to come up.

i get what you're saying, but what you're not factoring in to your "pissed off" state of mind is that there have been too many times this has happened (disproportionately to mostly black folks), and when the facts came out and there wasn't an "other side to the story" (i.e. he tried to steal the officers gun). more often than not, where this is smoke, there is fire. so as i mentioned before, a large part of this is the riots aren't specifically about this incident, but all the incidents before it and the ever present fear of this incident happening to any young black person in america.

with that said, let's say he did steal some cigars, push and old lady down and then reach for the police officers gun. i haven't read any laws, but pretty sure that doesn't give them the right to get shot/killed with his hands up. that most likely means tried as an adult and gets a long sentence. also, it especially doesn't allow anyone to say "see! see! he did something! he wasn't innocent! they were wrong to riot and protest! they should have waited for the facts!"

 

according to the ap, the officer did not know he was a suspect.

https://twitter.com/ap/status/500359930483081217

 

yup. just read that from five separate news sources. what a confusing mess.

 

but was he wearing a hoodie? this is important.