Discussion for article #242924
Christ, I’m sick of this shit happening again and again. It’s almost like the cops have decided, “Fuck it. We’re deadly racists and don’t care anymore who knows it.”
Did you read the article? This guy beat some woman until she needed an ambulance, then as the EMT’s were trying to get her treated and into an ambulance, he kept trying to get at the victim.
He also has record for aggravated robbery, and was convicted this year of terrorist threats. He was a low life POS.
Now, as to what actually happened and if he deserved to be shot, don’t you want to hear statements from the EMT’s, etc? And if not, how come your initial rage is directed at the police in this case, when this asshole was trying to beat a woman to death?
When they’re acting this way, I don’t think I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Your mileage may vary.
Oh please, we saw all kinds of protests in Ferguson, turns out the cop was totally justified in the shooting, and that numerous witnesses lied their asses off. So?
I’ll stick with facts thanks. I don’t care about what protesters say or what police say. I’m interested in facts.
Oh, those people arrested for “unlawful assembly and pedestrian on the freeway”. What they were protesting has no relevance, they were breaking the law. Had they not been disruptive and instead peaceably assembled, there would not have been any arrests. More than 200 protesters blocked Interstate 94 as well. Some of them threw bottles and rocks at squad cars, one punched a trooper. These are not protesters, they are assholes. They are backing some guy who almost beat a woman to death.
I understand that if you have relatives or friends or coworkers who are cops, it’s hard to believe that cops are the bad guys in any of these incidents. But there are just too damn many of them to wave away at this point. And, no, the conclusion of the DOJ was not that the Ferguson shooting was justified, but that there was insufficient evidence to say that it wasn’t.
The Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. The Justice Department also announced that the evidence examined in its independent, federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown does not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson.
I never said that. I have spoken out against the police on numerous occasions (Rice, Walker, Garner, etc.).
You cite the DOJ Report “conclusion”. The Report was to see if there was sufficient evidence to charge Wilson. The “Conclusion” would state there either there was sufficient evidence to charge, or there was insufficient evidence to charge. Nothing more. That conclusion is based on rest of the report, which leaves NO ambiguity in stating that all actions by Wilson were justified. They say “evidence establishes”, not that there is not enough evidence. They even analyzed the number of shots and said they were justified since the “evidence established” that Brown kept charging at Wilson until the last shot. Numerous black eye witnesses, NONE of who changed their stories, verified this, and it fit perfectly with the forensic evidence.
Here is the Report.
Read pages 78-80 (you should actually read the whole thing".
- Shooting at the SUV
The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV
were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. - Wilson’s Subsequent Pursuit of Brown and Shots Allegedly Fired as Brown Was
Running Away
The evidence does not support concluding that Wilson shot Brown while Brown’s back
was toward Wilson. - Shots Fired After Brown Turned to Face Wilson
The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were
in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment
As to the Report on the Ferguson PD, that was also true, they had a lot of racist practices. In fact, Eric Holder pointed out that the reason so many people lied about Brown being shot with his hands up, etc., was due to hatred of police based on police racism. BUT, DOJ was very clear in saying Wilson was totally justified.
Yet people continue to protest that? Why? It’s documented. No one wants to read the report for some reason.
“Totally justified” are your words, not the report’s.
The government therefore cannot meet its burden of establishing probable cause to a grand jury
or proving beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve trial jurors that the shots fired by Wilson at the
SUV were unreasonable.
No, they were in the report. They were VERY clear on Wilson acting in SELF DEFENSE, VERY clear. NO ambiguity whatsoever. They used the words “self defense”.
On page 80:
"The use of deadly force is JUSTIFIED when the officer has “probable cause to believe that
the suspect pose[s] a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.” "
Yes, they said “justified”.
on page 86
“Because Wilson DID NOT act with the requisite criminal intent”
They numerous times said that Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown were “not objectively unreasonable”, nor were they a “violation of 18 USC 242”. That makes them justified.
You sound like a Birther who continues to argue Obama’s Birth Certificate is “photoshopped”. You just don’t want to accept facts.
Hah, hah, hah. That’s rich. They quote the general circumstances under which deadly force is justified, and you proudly trumpet this as supporting your statement that they said Wilson’s act was “totally justified.” You desperately want that statement to be correct, but it is nowhere to be found in the report. Everything they said except what I quoted above is explanatory. You have their verbatim conclusion, which says nothing about “justified,” totally or otherwise.
Look, you’re perfectly free to believe whatever you want about the cops vs. blacks and it’s clear from your history that you’re going to side with the cops almost always. But your nitpicky insistence that others be rigorously impartial while you show every bias toward the cops is somewhat farcical. I don’t think this conversation is going to be very productive from this point on, so why don’t we agree to drop it. We’re usually on the same side, so let’s just enjoy that.
Yes, they quoted that as a referenced criteria in the relevant sub-section (“Legal Standard”") of the Report, SELF-DEFENSE, no kidding. Then they went on to say this in the “Uses of Force” subsection about what actually happened:
- Shooting at the SUV
The EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV
were in SELF-DEFENSE - Shots Fired After Brown Turned to Face Wilson
The EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were
in SELF-DEFENSE
Both of those subsections are from the “Legal Analysis” Section of the Report.
What part of that is ambiguous. These are definitive statements. One section of the Report dictates the criteria, the other establishes the criteria were met. But your issue is that it was not in one sentence? Seriously?
And by the way, a female friend of Michael Brown’s said he had been having difficulty coping with life and had been very depressed of late. The black witnesses who never changed their stories and were right there said he initially raised his hands, then after a few seconds he charged at the cop and did not stop until the last shot. Suicide by cop appears to have been the scenario. They said the cop kept backing off and yelling to stop. In fact, a couple of them said they would have shot Brown sooner. And on top of that, forensic evidence backed this up 100%. And remember that truck driver MSNBC kept playing over and over that said Brown had his hands up? Well, it turns out he did not see the shooting, he only saw when Brown raised his hands. He then turned away, then heard shots after a bit and started to look back again. But to know all that, you would actually have to read the Report.
Yes, we are usually on the same side. In this particular case, with all due respect, you are being real silly. It would be like me citing a report on a Murder and saying that just because one section of the report defines murder, and another section defines the criminal act of the killing, that they are somehow not related since they were not in the same sentence. Well, that’s not how Reports like that work. And I think you know this (or you just are in denial and don’t want to read the Report), but just enjoy playing games. Yes, there are bad cops. There are also FAR more “bad guys” who commit crimes and do stupid shit. This was one of those cases. Brown’s death was tragic, but he definitely gave the cop no choice. Who the hell does a strong arm robbery, then parades down the street with the stolen merch in open view in his hands? Answer: Someone deeply disturbed who wants trouble.
Yes, that’s what we were discussing, the police Union was trying to cover it up (as the article says) while the cops themselves made different statements. So indeed it was the Union trying to cover up, not the cops at the scene. Agreed.
Nice try. Some don’t want to believe we have a problem.
Hmmm. where in my comment did I say that. I am talking about THIS specific situation. And in this situation, the police union tried to cover up, and the police at the scene did not. Sure, in many situations cops cover up by lying, no doubt. Just like in Ferguson, a lot of black people lied about that shooting. What relevance does either of those have to this situation? None.
I’m not much for generalizing and stereotyping. I’m not into the “I hate blacks” or “I hate cops” narratives. I hate bad cops and bad blacks. I view each incident individually and analytically. The bad guys here are the head of the Union, and obviously the asshole who shot the kid umpteen times.
Relevance to this incident? Zero.
Look at this:
http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/ferguson-witnesses-admit-they-lied-to-grand-jury-109852
Once again, relevance to this incident? Zero.
One on your side:
?? My “side” is always on the opposite side of those at fault. I don’t view this as choosing sides, I view it as looking at each case individually and making an informed decision on who to back.