5 ms·

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. P

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.
  - trhway 12y ago
    Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill. The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your live and death are at their will. That fear is supposedly makes you behave "good". It is a violation of civil rights of general population the same way like sniper rifle prominently targeting demonstrators (another piece of the Dominant Force) is a violation of the demonstrators' 1st Amendment rights (by generating chilling effect)
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      The officer was equipped with a P229 Sig Sauer, which loads with either 9mm or .40S&W rounds. I've been unable to find whether the autopsy indicated 9mm or .40 rounds, but if it's 9mm, it's most certainly not true that a single round would stop someone who's charging towards you and is flooded with more adrenaline than they've ever experienced in their life. This phenomenon has been documented time and time again, as counterintuitive as it sounds. In fatal stabbing incidents, people often comment about how they had no clue how bad the stab really was. That's because adrenaline disables your normal systems which tell your brain that anything is wrong. Officers aren't trained for Hollywood-style precision shots to the leg. They are trained never to point their guns at anything they're not willing to kill, and if you are forced into a situation where you must use your weapon, to aim for center of mass and continue shooting until the threat is neutralized. If we disagree with officer training policy, we should try to change it. But we can't go back now and say they shouldn't have followed their training.
      - trhway 12y ago
        pure BS. That fat kid could have been stopped by a punch, let a one shot from 9mm. And that even if he was attacking the officer, which he wasn't to start with. Again, there wasn't need to kill, yet there was a right to do it - kid stupidly resisted harassment and even tried to move away ("run" in official language as he couldn't really run due to the fat) - and officer executed his right as they usually do to send the message that even minor disobedience will be severely punished.
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.

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.
- trhway 12y ago
  Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill. The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your live and death are at their will. That fear is supposedly makes you behave "good". It is a violation of civil rights of general population the same way like sniper rifle prominently targeting demonstrators (another piece of the Dominant Force) is a violation of the demonstrators' 1st Amendment rights (by generating chilling effect)
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    The officer was equipped with a P229 Sig Sauer, which loads with either 9mm or .40S&W rounds. I've been unable to find whether the autopsy indicated 9mm or .40 rounds, but if it's 9mm, it's most certainly not true that a single round would stop someone who's charging towards you and is flooded with more adrenaline than they've ever experienced in their life. This phenomenon has been documented time and time again, as counterintuitive as it sounds. In fatal stabbing incidents, people often comment about how they had no clue how bad the stab really was. That's because adrenaline disables your normal systems which tell your brain that anything is wrong. Officers aren't trained for Hollywood-style precision shots to the leg. They are trained never to point their guns at anything they're not willing to kill, and if you are forced into a situation where you must use your weapon, to aim for center of mass and continue shooting until the threat is neutralized. If we disagree with officer training policy, we should try to change it. But we can't go back now and say they shouldn't have followed their training.
    - trhway 12y ago
      pure BS. That fat kid could have been stopped by a punch, let a one shot from 9mm. And that even if he was attacking the officer, which he wasn't to start with. Again, there wasn't need to kill, yet there was a right to do it - kid stupidly resisted harassment and even tried to move away ("run" in official language as he couldn't really run due to the fat) - and officer executed his right as they usually do to send the message that even minor disobedience will be severely punished.

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.