4 ms·

FTA: "Brown's death, which is now being investigated by the FBI, has generated a great deal of discussion (as well as protests, vigils, and riots) in recent da

FTA: "Brown's death, which is now being investigated by the FBI, has generated a great deal of discussion (as well as protests, vigils, and riots) in recent days, with many condemning the police officer for shooting an unarmed young man." However: "But authorities say Brown had attacked the officer in his car and tried to take his gun. "The genesis of this was a physical confrontation," St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said. His department has been called in to conduct an independent investigation." Let's not be too quick to call out the lynch mobs here. On the other hand: if I thought someone was going to shoot me, the resultant headline might well read "unarmed man shot while trying to take the shooters gun". /me awaits the investigation and / or trial and / or video of the event

Avshalom 12y ago
Also with regards to the article: frankly it doesn't matter what Brown did/didn't. The article is about how media's choices shape narratives in a way that the hash tag users feel creates a bias against Brown and is part of the greater fabric of racism in america. I repeat that's all regardless of Browns actions.
Avshalom 12y ago
It's not a video but: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-sh...
supergauntlet 12y ago
>Lets not be too quick to call out the lynch mobs here. Do you really think its a good idea to use the phrase "lynch mobs" when referring to the backlash of an apparently racially charged shooting, where the parent article is specifically about race issues? Perhaps its just me, but that seems in poor taste.
- moggflunkies 12y ago
  Hyper-sensitive much?
imatworkyo 12y ago
of course the officer said he went for his gun. Every other eyewitness says otherwise. This is why we had calls for Police to where cameras - they lie what has people even more outraged is that the spokesperson said the shooting was justified, BUT there will be an investigation.... This isn't just people going for the lynchmob
rosser 12y ago
Yeah, it turns out, witnesses plural, dispute the police's account. It's too bad the St. Louis police aren't wearing webcams while on duty.
- randallsquared 12y ago
  Those tend to fail or be unavailable in cases like this. It's all the rest of the people who need to start lifelogging.
nashequilibrium 12y ago
At no point did the kid enter the car. You want us to believe that a teenager, starting college the next day, dove into the drivers side of the car to steal a police officers gun. Picture that for a second and if that doesn't make you laugh then i don't know what will. The eyewitness accounts make the most sense so far. Secondly, the gunshot to the back doesn't make sense. The gunshots while his hand were up also doesn't make sense. It seems like the cop was wrong on a number of levels.
marcus_holmes 12y ago
I think that the police are there to protect people. All people, even black teenagers. I think that every time a police officer fails in that simple duty so badly that they actually kill one of the people they are supposed to protect, that there needs to be an assumption of guilt and failure on the part of the police. I think that if we don't do that, if it becomes accepted that the police can occasionally kill people as part of their job, that we lose sight of what we have a police force for. I think that being a police officer is hard because they have to deal with bad people without insulting them, restricting their rights or hurting them. The reward for doing this job right is the respect and co-operation of the community they protect. The penalty for not doing this job right is the loss of that respect and co-operation. So I think whatever happens at the trial is irrelevant. The police failed here, and have lost the respect of their community. They need to do their jobs better.

Avshalom 12y ago

Also with regards to the article: frankly it doesn't matter what Brown did/didn't. The article is about how media's choices shape narratives in a way that the hash tag users feel creates a bias against Brown and is part of the greater fabric of racism in america. I repeat that's all regardless of Browns actions.

Avshalom 12y ago

It's not a video but: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-sh...

supergauntlet 12y ago

>Lets not be too quick to call out the lynch mobs here. Do you really think its a good idea to use the phrase "lynch mobs" when referring to the backlash of an apparently racially charged shooting, where the parent article is specifically about race issues? Perhaps its just me, but that seems in poor taste.

moggflunkies 12y ago
Hyper-sensitive much?

imatworkyo 12y ago

of course the officer said he went for his gun. Every other eyewitness says otherwise. This is why we had calls for Police to where cameras - they lie what has people even more outraged is that the spokesperson said the shooting was justified, BUT there will be an investigation.... This isn't just people going for the lynchmob

rosser 12y ago

Yeah, it turns out, witnesses plural, dispute the police's account. It's too bad the St. Louis police aren't wearing webcams while on duty.

randallsquared 12y ago
Those tend to fail or be unavailable in cases like this. It's all the rest of the people who need to start lifelogging.

nashequilibrium 12y ago

At no point did the kid enter the car. You want us to believe that a teenager, starting college the next day, dove into the drivers side of the car to steal a police officers gun. Picture that for a second and if that doesn't make you laugh then i don't know what will. The eyewitness accounts make the most sense so far. Secondly, the gunshot to the back doesn't make sense. The gunshots while his hand were up also doesn't make sense. It seems like the cop was wrong on a number of levels.

marcus_holmes 12y ago

I think that the police are there to protect people. All people, even black teenagers. I think that every time a police officer fails in that simple duty so badly that they actually kill one of the people they are supposed to protect, that there needs to be an assumption of guilt and failure on the part of the police. I think that if we don't do that, if it becomes accepted that the police can occasionally kill people as part of their job, that we lose sight of what we have a police force for. I think that being a police officer is hard because they have to deal with bad people without insulting them, restricting their rights or hurting them. The reward for doing this job right is the respect and co-operation of the community they protect. The penalty for not doing this job right is the loss of that respect and co-operation. So I think whatever happens at the trial is irrelevant. The police failed here, and have lost the respect of their community. They need to do their jobs better.