General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis whole Michael Brown incident comes down to this:WE DON'T KNOW MUCH!
Conflicting stories about what happened in the car.
Conflicting stories about if Brown rushed the cop!
Conflicting stories about the cop being punched.
The cop isn't talking, which I would recommend to ANY suspect in a crime.
We don't know to trust the cops story or the witness with Michael's story.
We don't know enough to decide what happened yet!
Not a popular answer, but the truth!
Flame away!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Change of venue to .... the moon? 
It will be hard to find 12 people in MO who have not been exposed to every public detail.
leftstreet
(36,111 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)
krawhitham
(4,647 posts)
Solomon
(12,319 posts)wrong. So why shouldn't he be arrested and put on trial?
krawhitham
(4,647 posts)He should be put on trial, my point was it needed to be fair trial. If you noticed I was responding to leftstreet who wants revenge not justice
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They did not get one for Trayvon, and look what happened. People thought GZ was a lovely guy who couldn't hurt a fly. Idiots.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Did you see the 30 some thousand facebook support for this guy
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)But don't let that stop a good rant.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)brains out and everything....
Witnesses say he had his hands up and was still executed.
Those facts aren't in dispute.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Seriously, what facts can come out at this point that justify executing an unarmed teen? At least six shots, some indicating his hands were up and one shot to the top of the head. A 6 foot 4 young man- obviously already down.
Someone give me the hypothetical where this is appropriate use of force.
boomer55
(592 posts)At the cop
I think all facts are not indisputable at this time
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I think someone already debunked this...but I'm not sure if it's the same one.
Please provide a link.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)boomer55
(592 posts)For some reason it's private. Check out the video from the post above mine.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)An anonymous friend of Darren Wilson claims that is what he told her happened, but it is a heresay account there are no witnesses that saw such a thing.
boomer55
(592 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)A background conversation in a video is not a source, if this person saw what happened he should come out and say so on the record. I am not going to trust a background conversation from an unknown source in a video that could have easily been manipulated as evidence.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What does that phrase mean to you?
The only "record" which matters is testimony under oath.
Are you on the grand jury? Do you know this person hasn't done so?
Given that this person can be subpoenaed to testify at trial, one would certainly expect this person, willingly or not, to testify on the record.
Or do you mean it is every witness' responsibility to show up on television and say stuff?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Do you even know that the audio was recorded at the scene of the murder? It is not difficult to lay audio over a video clip.
Until we have a person publicly come out and say they were at the scene and they witnessed what happened this video means nothing. We don't know who is talking on it and we don't even know that the audio was recorded at the same time as the video.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But establishing who it is and getting their testimony is not rocket science either.
"Until we have a person publicly come out and say..."
No, that is nonsense. There will be no trial determined by what anyone has chosen to go on television and say.
The video was shot from a location where the residents can be questioned, it was uploaded to a YouTube account owned by someone, from an IP address being used by someone's account. Getting to the source of the video is an investigative no-brained. Getting that person to testify, or finding out the audio is bogus, is also a no brainer. However, no step of that process requires anyone to go on teevee and talk about jack shit.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Until then I am not buying this video. Right now we do not know who made this video and they have not testified, I don't automatically believe everything that is posted on the internet.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It is possible to neither believe nor disbelieve something.
I have no idea if the video is genuine. You seem to have made a decision it is not genuine. There is no basis for a conclusion either way, but you have jumped to one.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I rarely even watch TV, much less believe everything I hear on television. You can put words in my mouth all you want but that does not make what you say my position.
I never said the video was not genuine either, I said I would listen to the person if they came out publicly but I am not going to automatically accept a video that MAY not be genuine.
You are the one that jumped to conclusions, not me.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Most trials are not televised, and most witnesses in most trials don't make statements on TV.
How does this not translate to "I only believe what I see on TV"?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Trials may not be televised but the information presented in them is still public record, if they testify in the trial they will have came out publicly.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)All you have heard is from self-selected people who have spoken in public.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I don't trust the source of that video especially considering we don't even know who the source is or if he will even testify.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to lawyers means sworn testimony in court or deposition. So when you said "on the record" you did not seem to mean that. But I could understand lay persons thinking the record could include what is said on major news sources rather than a you-tube video. I think your main point was that. You-tube isn't as good a source as the public media, which would be choosier, and anyone can upload something to you-tube. So we don't know if that witness is anyone the prosecutor would actually call. I could make a video claiming I saw the whole thing and saying what I saw, but I could be making that up. Being a prosecutor is going to be tough these days.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your stance would have to take into fact that everyone in this town would be comfortable talking on camera. That minorities, who have clearly been unfairly targeted by police, should risk their freedom to go on camera. There is a very good chance that more witnesses are out there who know how the police department works. It is not for you to decide if they put themselves in a position to lose their freedom by going on camera. They are not here for your amusement. They are being oppressed.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)What I said is I am not going to take an anonymous YouTube video at face value.
I don't believe the charging story for a second, and this video with an anonymous source is not convincing.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And I fully understand your position. I just think it is unfair in this instance. The reason some very good people might not want to be put on camera is real and obvious. These are the people who need to be heard. The pd has taken their voice from them. There is a good chance there are a number of eye witnesses who will in no way come forward to the public yet they might want their story out there. I will not discount their words. You position guarantees that those with arrest warrants, not willing to go on camera, will never be trusted. Another win for a racist pd. This is the mindset they have been working to accomplish. Clearly it works.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)It is not a win for the police department that they don't have any witnesses that will publicly back up the bullshit story that Brown charged the cop.
boomer55
(592 posts)He wasn't moving, was shot in the back and had his hands up and said don't shoot
Got it
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)We do not know the name of the person talking on this clip, there is a difference between known sources and anonymous sources.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes, we have seen self-selected witnesses who chose to go on TV. It's never a good idea, but there are second rate hack lawyers who are more interested in exposure than in their clients.
This is why the Constitution provides for process to compel production of evidence. We don't have a "volunteer witness" system of conducting trials. The defense can easily run this video to ground and get to the bottom of it.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)which includes one person narrating what he saw - explaining why Brown's body was where it was. That person did say that he saw Brown turn and run toward Wilson.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The audio could be fake, is the point. Of course, that can be sorted out.
But if it is a contemporaneous recording of a witness, then the witness had best find some other place of repose.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)"we don't know" is the most logical conclusion at this point.
There are no "facts" known, only speculation.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)His back was turned and he was shot at. But that doesn't mean the bullets hit.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)So, people relying on the New York Times story to discredit witnesses who say he appeared to be shot from behind will now have to put that one aside. The New York Times story appears to have misstated Baden and his associate's conclusions. Brown may have been shot from behind.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)So the eyewitness account "they shot him in the back" actually meant, they shot at him while his back was turned ? See I thought Brown's friend in a taped news interview, said Mike was shot first in the body, in the front, .... at the cop car. I'm not even a lawyer, and all I need is that first taped interview, with a news camera shoved in his face, .... and Mike's friend Darias (not sure on spelling) will discredit the only credible witness, himself. I watched the interview, I'm no speculating, however I may be incorrect on if it was Darias or just another "eyewitness".
"we don't know"...is true, ..... the re-definition of the "eyewitnesses" account has gotten out of hand.
Furgeson is about to get real ugly, real fast, .... unless some of the "eyewitnesses" stories can at least stand for a day or two. Wait till the miss-understanding of the law starts. The grand jury indictment ....... or not .......... is when the REAL ride begins.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Granted they thought he was shot in the back, but that's hard to tell - when and where a shot is coming from (see the grassy knoll).
The charging the cop thing is clearly made up - it took them a while to make that one up - surprising as they did it in the Zimmerman case - they should know that's the only way shooting an unarmed youthful person can be justified.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I will disregard all eyewitness statements taken more than 3 hours after the incident. .and take those taken within 3 hours as erroneous until demonstrated otherwise.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Other than to add...there probably isn't a conspiracy that will make it through the investigative process...
valerief
(53,235 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to valerief (Reply #7)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
gordianot
(15,243 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)He's just not talking to cable news
Igel
(35,350 posts)by those who needed to interview him. Don't know if it was a deposition or not. Probably had a lawyer when he did his talking. If not one he hired, than a union lawyer (I assume the police there are unionized or have some sort of organization that they're part of.)
If he wasn't talking, he'd probably be in serious trouble. Talking is how he's going to defend himself.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)besides Michael's friend, Dorian Johnson.
The ones I've seen on video are Phillip Walker, Tiffany Mitchell, and Piaget Crenshaw.
None of the four witness accounts of what happened at noon on Saturday, August 9th are conflicting.
Why wouldn't you "trust" those witnesses?
Igel
(35,350 posts)The longer witnesses are exposed to each other's story the more alike they become.
Each time you recall a memory you re-create it. It gets revised. Altered slightly. Perhaps very slightly. Perhaps a lot. The longer you think about what you saw to get all the details right the more likely that what you're telling is a story modified to make all the details you think have to fit fit. If a person's account is contradictory in a reasonable way it's probably mostly accurate. You get the uncertainties in recall, you get where they made mistakes. That's being human. These witnesses have recalled their accounts many times and made them consistent.
When you hear a version that conflicts with yours, revision is easy. The more you hear it, the more likely you'll become uncertain about some details and become more certain about others. Especially when you're on the same side as the person you're defending. Then it's not just revising in the face of possible uncertainty, it's revision for a cause, for a purpose. They've heard each other's stories multiple times. And had time to go back and make their individual accounts consistent.
When you are interviewed and the interviewer asks certain questions you sometimes assume that the interviewer has additional information. It's easy to plant details in a memory. You don't remember the color car somebody was driving? "Was it red?" "Uh ... Maybe." "So it was red?" "Um ... okay." "Are you sure or not?" "Yeah, I'm sure." And the next time you tell the story you offer the detail that the car was red. When being interviewed, you can be sure questions like, "Did he try to surrender?" or "Did he indicate he wasn't going to fight back?" came up. It's a big point. And the reporters, friends, family, strangers would demand certainty--and probably certainty of a particular kind.
And finally, you have to account for bias. If the cop fired a warning shot (or missed) but Brown jerked around suddenly, a witness might not describe what he saw but the sense he made of what he saw. Instead of "I heard a shot fired and saw Michael Brown respond with a shudder" you get "Michael Brown was shot in the back." One's observation; the other's conclusion. "Michael Brown fell to his knees and raised his hands to surrender" is a conclusion; "Michael Brown fell to his knees with his hands in the air" is observation. "Michael Brown dropped to his knees and the cop kept on shooting" may be observationally correct but not adequate--if Brown's action took 2 seconds and the cop shot for seconds after he dropped, you can assume the cop saw what was happening and decided to shoot somebody on his knees; if both took the same length of time, given human reaction times it's possible that the cop had programmed and initiated his muscle actions before he could take into account Brown's movements. Either way, the conclusion--and often the details provided by the witness--is going to be based on personal history and perception of motives and causes. Everybody excuses those that they identify with and portrays those they dislike in the worst possible light.
And when we read or listen to witnesses, we have that same attitude. Witnesses that you identify with, that say what you think is right and true, are much more credible than witnesses that might disagree with you or not be people you identify with. A witness that supports your confirmation bias is to be trusted; a witness that challenges your confirmation bias must be dismissed as irrelevant or ignored, or if that's impossible then grilled and examined every which way.
You want to get to the witnesses before they hear each other's story, and before they've had a chance to make all the details they think they remember fit, before they have a chance to be influenced by others. You take the witnesses at once and put them into separate rooms. You sequester them until you have their accounts. And you get their accounts fast.
And you have to listen to all witnesses. Evidence, evaluation of evidence, conclusion, re-examining the logic of the conclusion, and then outrage. Anything else tends to result in a mess--horses' noses aren't much use when it comes to pushing carts. Especially weighty carts like this one.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)and was interviewed at the scene by a local tv channel last Saturday, not long after the shooting occurred, said that the cop continued to fire his gun at Michael Brown after he was already subdued, giving up, standing before the officer, hands raised. There was no substantial risk of death or any serious bodily injury to that cop or anybody else when he used deadly force to empty his gun into an unarmed kid.
I haven't seen that man on tv again since the day of the shooting. As far as I know, he's only given his account once. From that same local channel, live, not long after the shooting, the reporter also spoke to the two women who had been sitting in the car that Dorian Johnson hid behind as the shooting went down. They were both totally traumatized, hysterical, and weren't able to say much of anything except that "He had his hands up and the cop shot him anyway!". I haven't seen either of them on tv since that day, either.
Personal history? You must be joking!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Turned out not to be true, right?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)That has not been proved untrue in any way. The pathologist who performed the autopsy with Baden stated that he may have been shot from behind as the wound on his arm is on the back of his arm. Moreover, since the police haven't released anything on the shooting, we don't know how many bullets Wilson fired. Some shots from behind may have missed.
So you're quite wrong that it has "turned out not to be true." The shot in the lower arm may have hit him from behind.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)You haven't listened to the original eyewitnesses accounts, have you?
Dorian Johnson thought that he was shot in the back and he also thought that he was shot at the car door...saw blood pooling on his shirt right before they took off running. That's the one account that has yet to be verified.
The other eyewitnesses weren't directly involved in the shooting like Dorian Johnson was and had their statements taken at the scene of the shooting by the authorities, along with the pictures and videos that were collected that afternoon.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You seem to be leaning towards the police point-of-view.
Most of the presently available information is from witnesses, and is consistent about the basic events. You choose to disregard this. Why? Are you holding out the hope that this policeman's actions were justified?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)An unarmed 18 year old was shot six time by a Ferguson, MO police officer
JCMach1
(27,572 posts)arrested for a minimum of Second Degree Murder
Logical
(22,457 posts)Worried for his safety. Now, maybe the rushing story is BS, but other witnesses will need to counter it.
JCMach1
(27,572 posts)all the other witnesses seem to dismiss the bum rush theory... it won't hold water unless physical evidence turns up in the autopsies
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Every department I have seen has in its employment contract that you cannot refuse to speak to internal investigators about an on the job incident. You can have a lawyer, but you can't plead the 5th on work related cases.
JCMach1
(27,572 posts)under those circumstances...
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)or he has already testified. One of the most damaging things in the Martin trial was the video of the soft pedal interview with Zimmerman by the cops caught on tape that allowed him to explain what happened in a friendly non-adversarial way. Not being able to cross examine such testimony is very damaging.
I am sure his cop buddies have made sure something favorable to him is in the can already.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)into a police SUV and removed. The coroner was not even called as he should have been. What is the police's excuse for that breach of protocol?
Logical
(22,457 posts)of this whole incident. The arresting reporters, not calling an ambulance, releasing the video. They are fucking idiots.
ecstatic
(32,729 posts)Can you imagine what would have happened had there only been one deadly shot (under the same circumstances)? The case would closed, of course. There'd be zero investigations going on right now. Just business as usual. Geez, wtf does it take for someone to get justice in this country? !
RagAss
(13,832 posts)I'm sick of this shit !
Rushed the cop?
Who the fuck cares if he "rushed the cop ?"
He's an 18 year old kid - not Dick Butkus for chrissakes !
You need to pump 6 bullets into an UNARMED kid because he ran at you???
Pitiful excuse for a Law Enforcement officer.
Fucking pitiful if that's his defense.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Confrontation, and he was supposed to handle it how?
RagAss
(13,832 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)best not to get in the way.
And I love how suddenly 240 pound, unarmed Michael Brown is now 300 pounds and charging at a police officer as he fires at him.
Soon, MB will be 7'5, 620 pounds and frothing at the mouth screaming "Allah Akbar!" as he throws screaming children into a cauldron of flame leaving the cop with no choice but to shoot.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)not sure if it was at DU.
It is horribly sad but I still can't help but laugh at your last line. It's so sadly true. People will keep demonizing him and demonizing him. And the killer will be a saint by the time we get to trial. I bet he does tons of community service and is a great father and saves kittens and old ladies.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Pretty sure Guinness was on the way to his house when everything happened.
And the killer will be a saint by the time we get to trial. I bet he does tons of community service and is a great father and saves kittens and old ladies.
Well, duh! He was BLONDE, wasn't he??? 
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)what happened to all his green?
JustAnotherGen
(31,874 posts)He also had a jack hammer on him and he was going to get a piece of sidewalk to slam the thugs head against. 
I wouldn't be surprised - we know how the Zimpig Lovin' types operate. . .
JI7
(89,262 posts)War Horse
(931 posts)If a cop can't handle a 300 lb 18 yr old w/o shooting them then maybe said person shouldn't be a cop.
Response to Logical (Reply #28)
Post removed
bullwinkle428
(20,630 posts)contrast with the words in your OP.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)my SIL who is a cop has managed to avoid killing people even though she's been rushed by large men, punched, spit on and dealt with numerous schizophrenics in the midst of a psychotic break. Perhaps better training for crappy police forces.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Unless the person in question is an alleged serial killer, if the police can't take the suspect into custody without potentially deadly force (or high speed car chases) they should accept it and let them go for the time being. Show up at their door the next day with 20 officers to arrest them for resisting arrest along with whatever else you were going to arrest them for in the first place.
There's absolutely no justification for police to use whatever violence or other tactics they deem fit to take a suspect into custody at the moment they want to. The vast majority of suspects will never kill or otherwise harm anyone.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But as I advices Cali_Democrat, one needs only research your posts during the Zimmerman affair, to see where you stand when a black kid is laying dead on the ground. - tacit support for the killer, and admonishments towards anyone who questions the killer's story.
randys1
(16,286 posts)
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)And various people with particular beliefs will crow and strut around here and then in a few weeks or a year, another black kid will be murdered by cops or wanna be cops or a store owner or some other shithead, and they will be back here urging caution and letting us know how "thuggish" the black kid is, and tut-tutting and carrying on in their usual manner.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Yeah like that's a legitimate concern. I am glad the FBI is investigating because I have no confidence there would be a trial at all otherwise.
agbdf
(200 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)we all know what this is about
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Rarely are eyewitnesses correct.
Don Lemon pointed this out tonight on CNN.
Half of the eyewitnesses said he was shot in the back, when it was patently clear yesterday that there were no wounds to his back.
Hey, but don't let that get in the way of your "narrative."
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The person who helped Baden with the autopsy stated unequivocally that one of the shots may have come from behind.
Was on CNN about an hour ago.
Ooopsies.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Yesterday on DU. I read NUMEROUS posts from the same posters saying Brown was shot in the back.
When I asked for verification, I got crickets.
And today we know. He was not shot in the back.
Other than that, I know nothing.
And neither does anyone else.
smakson
(5 posts)We don't know any such thing. He very well may have been shot from behind. Not in the back, but in the arm. The pathologist said as much.
So did people say he was shot in the back, or shot when running away?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)
Rhiannon12866
(205,927 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)saying that one shot may have come from behind. The New York Times clearly got the story wrong, as did everyone else, when they stated that no shots could have come from behind. The pathologist who helped conduct the autopsy stated very clearly on Anderson Cooper and then again on Lawrence O'Donnell that one shot may have hit Brown from behind.
Rhiannon12866
(205,927 posts)They should be able to get a definitive answer from the video that the young woman took from her balcony. 
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)One of the people who performed the autopsy just said as much on CNN.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Turns out he was shot in the top of the head.
You people have lost ALL credibility.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)on the flimsiest of excuses.
I just don't know why you're so willing to give the authorities the benefit of the doubt, at this point.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Not a popular answer, but the truth! Flame away!"
I find your preemptive self-martyrdom rather bemusing. Creating a cross to hang oneself from is often self-fulfilling.
However, as we are neither jurists nor judge in this case, idle speculation seems at worst, benign.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)KG
(28,752 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)but James Holmes and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are locked away until trial.
Most of us would be in jail right now on a million dollar bail if we were caught gunning down someone in broad daylight and multiple people said the victim had his hands up and tried to flee. We'd have to prove our innocence a year or two later in court.
but NOOOO the same rules don't apply to cops.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)the opinions on DU won't mean shit. It's sad to see so many people with their minds made up already. We might be setting ourselves up for another shocking disappointment.
JI7
(89,262 posts)who should have been convicted.
but the defense made sure to fill the jury with racists .
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Yup, maybe Brown was really Juggernaut and the cop had a magic bullet that turned him mortal?
Or maybe the cop didn't shoot at all and it was gun toting THUGS that shot Brown to make it look like a police slaughter and disappeared without notice.
Or maybe this kid got the officer's gun away, shot himself, and threw the gun back to the cop with his dying effort.
Maybe Brown was a TERRORIST and the officer was only following orders directly from OBAMA!
Who knows what really happened??? Maybe it is Schroedinger's Mike Brown and depending on what we do next he is still alive and since we haven't seen the cop, fuck he might even end up killed to or instead.
Fuck knows what has or maypossiblywill conceivably happen upon a time?!? We may well find none of this is real, we might be holograms, fucking holograms man! You can't kill a hologram, dude! It's just a trick of light, Bra!
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Not the truth at all and you know it.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)This post is untruthful. Many statements are flat out lies and does nothing to further discussion on this topic. In fact poster admits it was posted to inflame also evidenced by the fact that poster also abandoned thread.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)And there are.
How is that a lie?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)there is one, 6 days later. If you know of more, please provide the links
cwydro
(51,308 posts)"he was shot in the back"
"He was running away and shot in the back"
He was running toward the cop."
"He had his hands up"
"He was kneeling"
"There was a struggle for the gun"
"He was a shoplifter"
"He was a robber"
The only thing disproved so far is that he was NOT shot in the back.
These are only a few of the conflicting stories. If you read DU, then you can find your own links. I have to go to work soon.
Really it is not hard to find the threads...they're all over the place.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)his back was turned
NO, I'm not going to argue with you. You and the OP are making the allegations, you provide the links. Otherwise you nor the OP have any credibility.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"poster admits it was posted to inflame also evidenced by the fact that poster also abandoned thread..."
Vegas odds tells me it's five to two that later we'll hear the righteous lament with wide-eyed and almost-believable sincerity "what makes you think I intended it *that* way? I'm so put upon just because I'm an independent thinker and my attackers are sheep who can't think for themselves..." 
How many times have we seen the same performance by so many bad actors under the impression people aren't actually giggling at them...? 
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Because they are some ugly, ugly people. I can't laugh at them, they are too repulsive.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)MOST STUFF over the past 10 years here, has been and probably always will be speculation no matter what it is. Unless we post LOLCAT pics...which are absolute.
BKH70041
(961 posts)Iggo
(47,564 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)There are many things we don't know, true enough. But in order for this cop to be exonerated, he's going to need for people to believe some wild and highly unlikely stuff. Any story that has a kid charging at someone he knows to be armed is bullshit. Unarmed people don't take runs at rage-filled cops unless sound mind and body left them long ago--that's not the case here. Any story that would tend to exonerate the officer would be unlikely, and therefore suspect. So it's not at all out of place for us to discuss the probable crimes of the police officer. A kid with a cop's weapon unloaded into him can't just be explained away. Final point: more of the unknowns would be known had the Ferguson PD been more forthcoming. But they're stonewalling, and you want for us to reserve judgment until we hear more from the people who don't want us to hear anything. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Conflicting stories about what kind of Skittles he bought.
Conflicting stories about whether his hoodie was draped over his head or not.
Conflicting stories about whether he was a thug or not.
George Zimmerman isn't talking, which I would recommend to ANY wannabe cop trying to sucker sympathetic Earl Turner fans into donating money to him.
We don't know to trust Zimmerman or the lazy coroner.
We don't know enough to decide what happened yet!
Not a popular answer, but the truth!
Flame away!
CatWoman
(79,302 posts) 
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)And we know that the police never intended to properly investigate the shooting. They did not even attempt to interview witnesses until they realized that they and a major incident on their hands. And we know that they violated so many constitutional rights, it is hard to even keep track and that they brutally oppressed the people of the neighborhood with military vehicles and weapons when people tried to point out the lack of investigation. And that they harassed and arrested journalist who were there to cover the protests. And since you don't learn to suck as hared as the Ferguson PD does overnight, we can surmise that they generally behave like a bunch of violent bullies.
So you are right that we don't know much about the actual crime, but that is because the police did not investigate the properly before everything blew up. If they had, we would probably know a lot more. Or not since it would not have become international news and we would probably not be paying attention. But we do know a bunch about the character and practices of the police there, and it is really, really, mind-blowingly bad.
My point is, it does not really matter, in the end, what actually happened. What is really terrifying is that way the police act when you dare to question them. The family and community and the right to ask "Why did your officer shoot an unarmed man?" and the police should have answered them in a civil and respectful manner.
unreadierLizard
(475 posts)contradict people saying "he was shot while his back was turned and he was surrendering", so it looks more like the guy was a thug trying to charge a police officer, possibly armed or what not.
still too early to tell but between the riots and the fabrication of witnesses and his family, less and less sympathy for me goes toward him. The militarization of police is a serious problem, but a thug who attacks a cop is not an "unjustified" shooting.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)but facts don't seem to be something you care about. He's a thug that attacked a cop in your eyes.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)The only reason no one's in jail is that a cop committed the murder of a black man.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I think you meant to say "If the perp weren't a cop or could make bail"
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)I don't think it's normally done. I think that I know what I meant, thanks.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,874 posts)You know what would be filled with awesome sauce?
If the police would release the incident report on the thug's shooting of Mr. Brown.
Then we would know everything.
Ask yourself this - why isn't that released to the public. This is an 'old case' - time to release it to the tax payers and citizens.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Managing personas is hard work.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)how much do we need to know to arrest someone? Not convict, just arrest?
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)and yet we do not know all the details.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)I don't understand why everyone chooses to be one side or the other...everyone I know has put this into two categories, either Michael Brown was just an innocent guy who got killed by a police officer for no reason, or he was a criminal thug who got what was coming to him.
Why can't both be true? Both sides here appear to be equally fucked up and misleading.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)There is always the DU majority side...and then the other side.
The majority does not understand "discussion", and immediately attacks the other side with personal attacks.
Seen it so many times.
JI7
(89,262 posts)cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Perhaps I missed it
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)You're comfortable with calling Brown a criminal thug, while we have to wait for more information whether gunning down someone with 6 shots is considered murder... Interesting...
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)You're calling a person who never went to trial a criminal thug. Cops go after suspects. Cops go after criminals. I don't know where you get suspected criminals from, nor why you placed that label on Michael Brown.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)means someone who has been convicted of committing a crime.
Michael Brown was definitely a criminal. It's a fact. It's on video that we've all seen. Until people here on the far reaches of BOTH SIDES acknowledge the FACTS in this situation, we will never have a fair justice system.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)That requires due process. All you saw was an altercation as Michael was attempting to leave the store. You have no audio and zero evidence whether the items were paid for or not. Like I said, you already convicted Brown without due process.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)No good conclusion will come from this until one side admits that the police officer used excessive force and should be charged with second degree murder, and the other side admits that the victim here wasn't just an man walking down the street minding his own business.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)I'm curious why you feel it's important to paint Michael as anything other than a guy walking home with his friend down the street? Don't you mean a criminal thug is dead? That's what you've been calling him throughout the thread.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)many black people as possible for no reason.
The only difference is that what I'm doing is based on fact and video evidence, and what you are doing is based on generalizations and stereotypes.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)I'll be waiting.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)Your discussion here is enough of proof to anyone reading, on where you stand.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)It's ok to say you made that claim up.
Getting back on topic, I'm all for Wilson getting the one thing neither he nor you gave Michael Brown. Due process.
jen63
(813 posts)isn't cause for the death penalty. Unless he killed someone with special circumstances, which sure isn't the case here. It's not up to the police to make that determination, that belongs in the court's jurisdiction. Being a "thug" doesn't give the police the right to "give him what was coming to him". This is a case of murder, plain and simple. The tragic part is that probably nothing will happen to this racist, murderous cop. It's sickening.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)an assault and robbery that just occurred?
jen63
(813 posts)He was gunned down in the street like his life had no meaning. Don't start with the strawman argument, or "what ifs". It is what it is. A clear case of murder by a trigger happy cop.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)He should have gotten back up if he felt he was threatened. He had no gun drawn on him. I don't see why cops need to always 'shoot to kill'--can't they learn (if they have to shoot) to shoot in the leg or something like that?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)No. Nobody with a working synapse tries to shoot anyone in the leg. Basic Firearms Training 101.
Rex
(65,616 posts)But we do know, there was no struggle, the gun was fired at a distance, Brown was hit at least 6 times. The cop fled town and went into hiding.
