8 ms·

Garner, from what we know, seems to be a man who did nothing seriously wrong during his encounter with the police. It is quite disturbing that this encounter re

Garner, from what we know, seems to be a man who did nothing seriously wrong during his encounter with the police. It is quite disturbing that this encounter resulted in his death. It's not even clear that he should have been having an encounter with the police in the first place. We can look at Garner, and see that a great injustice happened to him. Compare to Brown. The police had a very good reason to stop him (walking in the middle of the street, matches description of person who had just robbed a nearby store and assaulted the shop keeper), and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun. The only thing it appears that the police officer did wrong was letting Brown approach the car while the officer was inside with his gun still holstered, which allowed Brown into a position to attack. Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation. Lumping Garner and Brown together, like these protestors are doing, seems to me to be an insult to the memory of Eric Garner.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun. I wish this single sentence was underscored and repeated every time this issue comes up. Physical evidence confirms this sequence of events: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguson-grand-jury-deliberations/19474907/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguso... There would not be blood inside the police car if Brown hadn't been reaching into the car. In what scenario was it reasonable for Brown to reach inside the police car? Are people seriously suggesting that Brown was casually leaning into the cruiser, and the officer pulled out his gun and shot him? Why is there blood inside the car if Brown wasn't wrestling for his gun? But, no, we can't let a little thing like evidence and due process stop us. Why people have chosen to make a violent individual who just robbed a store into a martyr is beyond me. That store he robbed has now been looted, by the way.
- trhway 12y ago
  They all were killed because police had the right and executed it at will, not because it was necessary. That execution being allowed by the law to go unpunished is what infuriates people. If somebody is guilty of minor offense, to use it as an excuse to execute them that is what infuriates. Remember video of Oskar Grant executed in cold blood? Minor excuse - oy! I thought it was taser - allowed to avoid murder charge clearly due there.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    But it's not an execution when you attack a police officer. The word "execution" has been brought into the debate solely to rile people up and make them forget that fact. Let's put it this way. Now, I'm not saying this version of events happened. I'm saying, please bear with me and seriously consider the question: You're a cop. You have a gun and nothing else. Someone has just leaned through the window of your cruiser and tried to grab your gun while beating your face. Adrenaline is pumping through you as a natural consequence of this. You defend yourself. He runs. You run after him to apprehend him, because it's your job and your duty to the community to apprehend someone brazen enough to attack a police officer. If they're willing to attack you, an officer, then obviously they're willing to attack anyone else in the community. As you run after him and catch up, he turns around and charges towards you. The gun is in play, now. You know it, he knows it. You've seen videos of how this has ended for other officers, where other criminals have grabbed the officer's gun and murdered them with it. You have two seconds to decide what to do. How would you react? What would you do? I don't know what I would do. I wouldn't want to be in that situation. But the officer certainly didn't either. Would you run away? Would you let him come up to you and try to punch him, and risk him wrestling the gun from you? Would you try to aim for his legs, even though every hour of gun range training in your life has always hammered into your instincts to aim for the center of mass, and never to point your gun at anything you're not willing to kill? What do you do in that scenario? My only point here is that the above scenario is the one which physical evidence has most closely corroborated. In particular, the bullets did not enter Brown from behind. Obviously, it was a huge failure of the police department on two counts. One, that every officer wasn't armed with a taser and pepper spray. Two, that every cruiser wasn't equipped with an audio and video recording system which was turned on at all times. That happened because the Ferguson police department is seriously under-funded. Other police incidents have experienced intentional coverups or other malicious intent, like destroying evidence or erasing video/audio tapes, but this wasn't one of them. The lack of equipment was a factor of funding. No one wanted a video more than that officer, whose life as he knew it is now essentially over. He has to live in secrecy the rest of his life, along with his family, friends, everyone he knew. He has to either cut ties with them or swear them to secrecy about his new identity and location.
- freddealmeida 12y ago
  He was just a child. It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be killing children.
  - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
    Are you trolling?
  - of 12y ago
    This is a good point - why has everyone downvoted it?
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      17 year old Marines are some of the most efficient killing machines on the planet. It's why we used them in WW2. Brown was 18. Youth alone isn't relevant. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacklyn_H._Lucas#Marine_Corps_service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacklyn_H._Lucas#Marine_Corps_s...
      - of 12y ago
        That's different, though. Michael Brown was not an "efficient killing machine" who signed up for the marines at age 17.
- cowardlydragon 12y ago
  Yep, so he DESERVED TO DIE, right?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Deserved, no. But precipitated, yes. For police to allow thugs to take their weapon is NOT an effective policy.
pvnick 12y ago
Indeed, what Brown did would have gotten any of us shot.
- cygx 12y ago
  It literally took me 5 seconds to find at least one instance where it didn't happen that way: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/11/24/white-man-beats-two-cops-shots-fired-unarmed-black-man-gets-shot-reason/ http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/11/24/white-man-beats-two-c... Anecdotal evidence and all that, but from a foreigners perspective, it seems America still has to deal with racial bias and a police force that is all too happy to escalate situations.
  - andrewchambers 12y ago
    If anything, that justifies to me why tasers aren't good enough. They had a right to shoot him if he was punching an officer in the head while forcing the officer into a corner.
king_jester 12y ago
> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. Other testimony indicates that Wilson may have instigated conflict when making the stop. > Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation. This is not at all the case. Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) and Brown was not armed in any way. We do not expect someone who commits a petty theft to be executed by the police when Wilson had a variety of other options at his disposal. Doing something stupid isn't and should not be a death sentence. > Lumping Garner and Brown together, like these protestors are doing, seems to me to be an insult to the memory of Eric Garner. These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States. Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. I didn't downvote (I think there's entirely too much of that on HN) but Brown's blood was inside the police car. There is no scenario that Brown's blood could have wound up inside the car unless he was reaching in through the window for some reason. Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? I'd love to be persuaded. We have to look at the physical evidence, not at what people said.
  - peterfirefly 12y ago
    I upvoted to cancel out the downvote someone gave you.
  - aswanson 12y ago
    Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? Seriously, I'd love to be persuaded. Ok. How about the cop grabs and yanks a teen that's near his window starting off the struggle. Teen struggles, pushes and or punches cop to break free as cop grabs gun and lets off shot or two while Brown continues to punch/struggle/push to break free, in the course of which Wilson suffers horrible injury that looks like a razor bump. Breaking free, Brown runs approximately 100 feet. Wilson, enraged that he was not immediately obeyed as ordered, starts firing, chasing brown and hits brown in some way. He fires 11 more shots as he fears for his life even though he is armed and pursued him for at least 150. Brown finally turns around, shot at least twice already. He faces a hail of bullets from Wilson, fatally struck on the top of the skull and dies. Wilson, knowing that officers always get the benefit of the doubt with the law and there is no objective evidence of the encounter and that dead people cant testify is somewhat assured his version of events are going to be believed. And he is right. Plausible, if not convinced?
jqm 12y ago
While I generally agree that Brown was responsible, Wilson did do something wrong. He pulled up squealing tires and yelled for Brown to get the F* out of the street. This type of verbal hostility is probably what got Wilson attacked in the first place. He set the fight button off. Not saying Brown was right.. he wasn't right, and he was stupid. Once he let his temper get the better of him, his shooting was all but inevitable. But I think this is what people are protesting against as much as anything. Not shootings necessarily, but the general dickish, hostile attitude of police. Especially against certain groups.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  That's interesting. Did Wilson act that way? I'm just wondering if there's an audio recording or some such.
  - jqm 12y ago
    That's my understanding. I'm guessing you might already be aware this is probably what happened, but in case not, I trust you will investigate. There is a reason people are so angry. And I think it's more than a kid (who even the most sympathetic must secretly understand brought it upon himself) getting shot. People in some communities are sick of being treating with lack of respect at nearly all turns by law enforcement. I can't say I blame them. (edited after thanks and upvote. apologies if content was changed substantially.)
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Thanks for the comment. I hadn't considered that aspect.

sillysaurus3 12y ago

he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun. I wish this single sentence was underscored and repeated every time this issue comes up. Physical evidence confirms this sequence of events: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguson-grand-jury-deliberations/19474907/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguso... There would not be blood inside the police car if Brown hadn't been reaching into the car. In what scenario was it reasonable for Brown to reach inside the police car? Are people seriously suggesting that Brown was casually leaning into the cruiser, and the officer pulled out his gun and shot him? Why is there blood inside the car if Brown wasn't wrestling for his gun? But, no, we can't let a little thing like evidence and due process stop us. Why people have chosen to make a violent individual who just robbed a store into a martyr is beyond me. That store he robbed has now been looted, by the way.

trhway 12y ago
They all were killed because police had the right and executed it at will, not because it was necessary. That execution being allowed by the law to go unpunished is what infuriates people. If somebody is guilty of minor offense, to use it as an excuse to execute them that is what infuriates. Remember video of Oskar Grant executed in cold blood? Minor excuse - oy! I thought it was taser - allowed to avoid murder charge clearly due there.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  But it's not an execution when you attack a police officer. The word "execution" has been brought into the debate solely to rile people up and make them forget that fact. Let's put it this way. Now, I'm not saying this version of events happened. I'm saying, please bear with me and seriously consider the question: You're a cop. You have a gun and nothing else. Someone has just leaned through the window of your cruiser and tried to grab your gun while beating your face. Adrenaline is pumping through you as a natural consequence of this. You defend yourself. He runs. You run after him to apprehend him, because it's your job and your duty to the community to apprehend someone brazen enough to attack a police officer. If they're willing to attack you, an officer, then obviously they're willing to attack anyone else in the community. As you run after him and catch up, he turns around and charges towards you. The gun is in play, now. You know it, he knows it. You've seen videos of how this has ended for other officers, where other criminals have grabbed the officer's gun and murdered them with it. You have two seconds to decide what to do. How would you react? What would you do? I don't know what I would do. I wouldn't want to be in that situation. But the officer certainly didn't either. Would you run away? Would you let him come up to you and try to punch him, and risk him wrestling the gun from you? Would you try to aim for his legs, even though every hour of gun range training in your life has always hammered into your instincts to aim for the center of mass, and never to point your gun at anything you're not willing to kill? What do you do in that scenario? My only point here is that the above scenario is the one which physical evidence has most closely corroborated. In particular, the bullets did not enter Brown from behind. Obviously, it was a huge failure of the police department on two counts. One, that every officer wasn't armed with a taser and pepper spray. Two, that every cruiser wasn't equipped with an audio and video recording system which was turned on at all times. That happened because the Ferguson police department is seriously under-funded. Other police incidents have experienced intentional coverups or other malicious intent, like destroying evidence or erasing video/audio tapes, but this wasn't one of them. The lack of equipment was a factor of funding. No one wanted a video more than that officer, whose life as he knew it is now essentially over. He has to live in secrecy the rest of his life, along with his family, friends, everyone he knew. He has to either cut ties with them or swear them to secrecy about his new identity and location.
freddealmeida 12y ago
He was just a child. It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be killing children.
- forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  Are you trolling?
- of 12y ago
  This is a good point - why has everyone downvoted it?
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    17 year old Marines are some of the most efficient killing machines on the planet. It's why we used them in WW2. Brown was 18. Youth alone isn't relevant. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacklyn_H._Lucas#Marine_Corps_service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacklyn_H._Lucas#Marine_Corps_s...
    - of 12y ago
      That's different, though. Michael Brown was not an "efficient killing machine" who signed up for the marines at age 17.
cowardlydragon 12y ago
Yep, so he DESERVED TO DIE, right?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Deserved, no. But precipitated, yes. For police to allow thugs to take their weapon is NOT an effective policy.

pvnick 12y ago

Indeed, what Brown did would have gotten any of us shot.

cygx 12y ago
It literally took me 5 seconds to find at least one instance where it didn't happen that way: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/11/24/white-man-beats-two-cops-shots-fired-unarmed-black-man-gets-shot-reason/ http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/11/24/white-man-beats-two-c... Anecdotal evidence and all that, but from a foreigners perspective, it seems America still has to deal with racial bias and a police force that is all too happy to escalate situations.
- andrewchambers 12y ago
  If anything, that justifies to me why tasers aren't good enough. They had a right to shoot him if he was punching an officer in the head while forcing the officer into a corner.

king_jester 12y ago

> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. Other testimony indicates that Wilson may have instigated conflict when making the stop. > Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation. This is not at all the case. Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) and Brown was not armed in any way. We do not expect someone who commits a petty theft to be executed by the police when Wilson had a variety of other options at his disposal. Doing something stupid isn't and should not be a death sentence. > Lumping Garner and Brown together, like these protestors are doing, seems to me to be an insult to the memory of Eric Garner. These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States. Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. I didn't downvote (I think there's entirely too much of that on HN) but Brown's blood was inside the police car. There is no scenario that Brown's blood could have wound up inside the car unless he was reaching in through the window for some reason. Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? I'd love to be persuaded. We have to look at the physical evidence, not at what people said.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  I upvoted to cancel out the downvote someone gave you.
- aswanson 12y ago
  Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? Seriously, I'd love to be persuaded. Ok. How about the cop grabs and yanks a teen that's near his window starting off the struggle. Teen struggles, pushes and or punches cop to break free as cop grabs gun and lets off shot or two while Brown continues to punch/struggle/push to break free, in the course of which Wilson suffers horrible injury that looks like a razor bump. Breaking free, Brown runs approximately 100 feet. Wilson, enraged that he was not immediately obeyed as ordered, starts firing, chasing brown and hits brown in some way. He fires 11 more shots as he fears for his life even though he is armed and pursued him for at least 150. Brown finally turns around, shot at least twice already. He faces a hail of bullets from Wilson, fatally struck on the top of the skull and dies. Wilson, knowing that officers always get the benefit of the doubt with the law and there is no objective evidence of the encounter and that dead people cant testify is somewhat assured his version of events are going to be believed. And he is right. Plausible, if not convinced?

jqm 12y ago

While I generally agree that Brown was responsible, Wilson did do something wrong. He pulled up squealing tires and yelled for Brown to get the F* out of the street. This type of verbal hostility is probably what got Wilson attacked in the first place. He set the fight button off. Not saying Brown was right.. he wasn't right, and he was stupid. Once he let his temper get the better of him, his shooting was all but inevitable. But I think this is what people are protesting against as much as anything. Not shootings necessarily, but the general dickish, hostile attitude of police. Especially against certain groups.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
That's interesting. Did Wilson act that way? I'm just wondering if there's an audio recording or some such.
- jqm 12y ago
  That's my understanding. I'm guessing you might already be aware this is probably what happened, but in case not, I trust you will investigate. There is a reason people are so angry. And I think it's more than a kid (who even the most sympathetic must secretly understand brought it upon himself) getting shot. People in some communities are sick of being treating with lack of respect at nearly all turns by law enforcement. I can't say I blame them. (edited after thanks and upvote. apologies if content was changed substantially.)
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Thanks for the comment. I hadn't considered that aspect.